JUDGMENT :

S. Sounthar, J.

[Prayer: First Appeal is filed under Section 96, Order 41 Rule (1) of Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the decree and judgment of the II Fast Track City Civil Court dated 28.07.2011 passed in O.S.No.11049 of 2010.

Prayer: First Appeal is filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2011 made in O.S.No.11049 of 2010 on the file of II FTC, City Civil Court, Chennai in so far as the judgment and decree not granting interest as claimed in the suit and pendente lite and post decree interest at 6% instead of rate as claimed in the suit.]

The appeal in A.S.No.107 of 2012 has been filed by the defendant/insurance company challenging the decree passed by the Trial Court decreeing the suit in part by directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.18,04,012/- towards insurance claim made by the respondent/insured.

2. The appeal in A.S.No.260 of 2013 has been preferred by the plaintiff/insured aggrieved by the portion of the decree negativing his claim for past interest from 01.04.2003 to the date of presentation of the plaint. The appellant also questioned the portion of the decree granting present interest at the rate of 6% instead of 12% as claimed by the appellant/plaintiff.

3. Since both the appeals are arising out of same suit filed by the defendant and plaintiff respectively, the appeals are taken together for disposal.

4. In these appeals, the defendant in the suit viz., insurance company is described as appellant. The plaintiff in the suit viz., insured is described as respondent. Therefore, in this judgment the expression 'Appellant' refers to appellant in A.S.No.107 of 2012 and the respondent in A.S.No.260 of 2013. Likewise the expression 'Respondent' means respondent in A.S.No.107 of 2012 and appellant in A.S.No.260 of 2013.

Plaint Averments:

5. The respondent/insured filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.20,65,594/- from the appellant/insurance company based on the insurance claim. According to the plaint averments, the respondent was carrying on business in the manufacture of cartons. He insured his factory building, plant, machinery and stocks etc., with the appellant against perils of storm, cyclone, typhoon, tempest, hurricane, tornado, flood or inundation. The insurance policy period was from 17.02.2002 to 16.07.2003. According to the respondent, on the night of 9/10th November 2002, few roof sheets of the respondent's factory premises were blown away due to storm and consequently, storm water seeped into the factory premises and damaged the stock stored in warehouse. The respondent informed the appellant/insurance company about the loss suffered by him and requested him for appointment of Surveyor to assess the loss. The respondent made a claim for Rs.19,96,051.34/- on 04.12.2002. Thereafter, the appellant appointed a Surveyor to inspect the premises and assess the loss. Subsequently, the appellant by its letter dated 23.12.2002 had chosen to close the claim of the respondent on the ground that the reason assigned for loss of stocks was not covered by the insurance policy. Therefore, the respondent by pointing out the certificate issued by the Meteorological Department that there was storm and heavy rain on the night of 9/10th November 2002 requested the appellant to reconsider its decision to reject the claim. It was also stated that the value of the damaged stocks were Rs.19,96,051.34, but the salvage was disposed by the respondent and the same fetched a sum of Rs.1,92,039/-. Therefore, the actual loss suffered by the respondent, according to the plaint averments was Rs.18,04,012.34/-. As the appellant failed to indemnify the loss within the reasonable time, the respondent claimed interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 01.04.2003 to the date of actual realisation. On these pleadings, the respondent laid a suit for recovery of the above said amount based on insurance claim.

Averments in the Written Statement:

6. The appellant filed