JUDGMENT

S.SOUNTHAR.J., The unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money based on insurance claim is the appellant.

2. PLAINT AVERMENTS:

The plaintiff is a Partnership Firm engaged in manufacture of Aluminium Chloride. It has taken two insurance policies with the defendant, one for its factory building at SIPCOT Industrial Estate, Gummidipoondi for value of Rs.25,00,000/- and the other policy for the stocks of raw materials, finished and semi finished goods, etc., kept at the factory premises for the value of Rs.75,00,000/-. The policy covers loss or destruction or damage due to storm, cyclone, typhoon, tempest, hurricane, flood or inundation. The period of the policy was from 30.01.2002 to 29.01.2003. According to the plaintiff, the area in which its factory was situated received heavy rainfall between 08.10.2002 to 12.10.2002. It resulted in flooding and inundation of factory premises which led to the damage and loss to the factory building and stocks therein, covered by the Insurance policies. The appellant/plaintiff claimed that at the relevant point of time, there was a total quantity of 20.023 tonnes of Aluminium Chloride lying in factory premises and the same was damaged by flood, inundation and consequently, became unusable. Therefore, the plaintiff raised the claim with the defendant for Rs.10,00,000/- towards damage to the building and Rs.5,61,759/- towards damage to the stock. The plaintiff further claimed that the defendant/respondent's Surveyor viz., N.Rajagopalan, inspected the spot and filed a report to the respondent and based on his report, the claim of the plaintiff was rejected by the defendant by communication dated 24.12.2002. The plaintiff further claimed that the copy of the Surveyor report was not furnished to him. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.18,19,449.20/-

together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the suit to date of payment.

3. AVERMENTS FOUND IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT:

The defendant filed his written statement and contested the suit on the ground that the damage to the building and stock was not due to the flooding but, only due to the entry of rain water through the holes in the roof of the factory premises. The defendant also claimed that Aluminium Chloride bags were stocked without any protective cover or door on either side of the building, in which it was kept. The defendant also claimed that as per Surveyor's report no visible marks were noticed on the walls of the insured building, evidencing the entry of flood. The respondent/defendant also claimed that in it's investigation it was found that the plaintiff had shut down the factory and stopped production from 29.05.2002 onwards due to some technical problem in reactors and laid off the workmen. The stoppage of production and closure of the factory was not at all intimated to the respondent/defendant. It was further claimed that the damage suffered by the plaintiff was not caused by floods but due to entry of rain water through the holes in the roof and hence the claim of the appellant/plaintiff was repudiated by the respondent/Insurance company. The defendant also specifically raised the plea that as per condition No.3(b) of the general conditions attached to the Fire Policy, the coverage of insurance ceases, if the building insured becomes unoccupied and so remains for a period of more than 30 days. Since there was no manufacturing activity on or after 01.09.2002, even according to the plaintiff, it was deemed that the insured premises was unoccupied on the date of alleged damage and hence the claim of the plaintiff is not maintainable. The respondent also filed an Additional written statement raising a plea that the person who had signed the plaint was not an authorised person to represent the plaintiff as per the provision of Indian Partnership Act and hence the suit has to be dismissed on that ground also.

4. AVERMENTS FOUND IN REPLY STATEMENT BY THE APPELLANT:

The appellant/plaintiff had f