JUDGMENT

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with judgment and decree dated 12.05.2018 passed by learned City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Civil suit No.4508 of 1999, the original defendant Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed this appeal under section96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short “CPC”).

2. For convenience parties are referred as per their status before the learned Trial Court.

3. The Plaintiff/Respondent instituted the suit for the recovery of a sum of Rs.2,24,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Twenty- Four Thousand Only) along with interest from the Defendant/Appellant, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited. Initially, an ex-parte decree was passed on account of the non-appearance of the Defendant/Appellant. However, vide order dated 26.09.2002 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Application (CMA) No. 21 of 2002, the learned Trial Court set aside the said ex-parte decree and restored the Civil Suit to its original file.

4. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present dispute are that the Plaintiff/Respondent is engaged in the manufacture of PTY, DTY, and POY paper tubes at Village Rajpur, Mehsana Highway, Taluka Kadi, District Mehsana, with its registered office situated at Ahmedabad. It was the case of the Plaintiff - Respondent that its stock was duly insured with the Appellant – defendant- Insurance Company for a period commencing from 12.08.1994 to 11.08.1995 against payment of a premium of Rs.2,616/-. The Appellant - Insurance Company accepted the risk upon accepting the premium and issued Policy No. 141406- 11-95-00843, which inter-alia covered risks arising out of fire, theft, and short circuits. The said policy was issued subject to specific terms and conditions and was renewed from time to time. On 14.04.1995, an electrical short circuit allegedly occurred within the factory premises, where fire broke out and destroyed the stock stored in the godown. The local police authorities were duly informed, and the Surveyor appointed by the Appellant was also informed vide letter dated 19.04.1995. The Surveyor inspected the site and submitted his assessment report, while the police drew up a panchnama during the course of their investigation. Since policy purchased by the plaintiff was in force on the date of incident, plaintiff claimed and de- manded amount of loss suffered due to destroy of stock by fire. The Defendant/Appellant Insurance Company contested the claim by filing its Written Statement at Exhibit 59, inter-alia denying the claim of the Plaintiff/Respondent and challenging the very maintainability of the suit. It was contended by the Appellant that the fire broke out in the factory premises solely due to the negligence and fault of the Plaintiff, thereby the Insurance Company is not liabile to pay damages. The Defendant/Appellant further contended that the suit was entirely false and frivolous, and since the incident was not covered under the strict terms and conditions of the insurance policy, the Plaintiff - Respondent was not entitled to seek any compensation from the Appellant.

5. The learned Trial Court framed the issues. In regards to issues, both the parties were permitted to lead evidence. Only plaintiff has lead oral and documentary evidence. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. did not produce any documentary evidence and plaintiff was not cross examined.

5.1. In view of above, learned Trial Court decreed the suit to grant compensation of Rs.2 lakhs with interest at rate of 8% from the date of sui