ORDER

Heard on admission as well as I.A. No. 4056/2024 which is an application for stay under order 41 Rule 5 of CPC.

2. The present appeal under Section 13(1) of the Commercial Courts Act 2015 read with Section 96 of CPC has been filed arising out of the judgment/ order dated 22-12-2023 passed by the Commercial Court/ VIIIth District Judge, Bhopal in suit No. COMMS/14/2020. By the said judgment/order and decree, the commercial suit filed by the respondent have been decreed and present appellants have been ordered to pay an amount of Rs. 161,20,27,743/- within two months of the order along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fire incident i.e. 07.06.2014 till actual realization.

3. The suit had been filed by the insured for compensation as the Insurance Company- appellant had repudiated the claim of the respondent-

plaintiff vide letter dated 04.02.2016 on the ground as detailed in the said letter. The Commercial Court has held the respondent-plaintiff entitled to compensation in terms of the Insurance Policy taken out by the respondent and an amount of Rs. 161,20,27,743/- has been ordered to be paid to the respondent-plaintiff which is equivalent to the loss caused to the respondent- plaintiff on account of the fire incident.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the fire incident took place on 07-06-2014 and a total of 3 different surveyors were appointed by the Insurance Company. The first survey was ordered to be conducted by M/s Adarsh Associates. The second survey was ordered to be conducted by M/s Associated Surveyors and Consultants. The third survey was ordered to be conducted by one Shri R.C. Bajpai. While the report of even the first survey was awaited, the Insurance Company had appointed an Investigator namely M/s. J. Basheer to carry out investigation and the said investigator submitted its report even prior to report of first surveyor. The second surveyor had appointed one third Agency namely M/s Truth Lab for conducting forensic testing of the samples and the report of the said lab was also received.

5. From the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant, it has been deduced that the first surveyor was appointed on 07-06-2014 and it gave its report on 30-12-2015. The second surveyor was appointed on 14-

08-2014 and it gave its report on 05-01-2016. The second surveyor had appointed M/s Truth Lab for forensic analysis which collected samples on 07-11-2014 and report was received on 01-12-2014. The investigator namely J.Basheer was appointed on 19.12.2014 who gave its report on 17-

06-2015. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant while assailing the impugned judgment/ order has submitted that since this is a first statutory appeal against the money decree, hence, the appeal should be admitted for hearing on merits and execution of the decree also needs to be stayed to secure the interest of the appellant-Insurance Company.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant while pressing the case of the appellant for grant of stay has submitted written submission and contended that the Commercial Court has merely relied on the report of first surveyor and has not carried out any independent assessment of the loss caused to the respondent-plaintiff. It is argued that by only recording that as per the first survey report, the loss assessed is Rs. 161,20,27,743/-, the Commercial Court has passed the decree which is not proper. It is further argued that the repudiation letter dated 04-02-2016 (Ex. P/273) is a very well reasoned and speaking order and there was no good cause for the Commercial Court to have allowed the claim of the respondent-

plaintiff despite the repudiation letter being speaking and reasoned order.

The repudiation was based on condition No. 8 of Fire Policy which was just and proper.

8. It is further contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the second surveyor had suggested deduction of 25% of the