[2026:RJ-JD:5880-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 753/2024

1. United India Insurance Company Limited, Through Chairman And Managing Director, 24 Whites Road, Chennai.

2. Regional Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, A-743, Bhati N Plaza, Pal Road, Jodhpur.

3. Senior Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd, A-743,bhati N Plaza, Pal Road, Jodhpur ----Appellants Versus Shekhawati Art And Exports, Through Partner Shri Lalit Johari S/ o Shri Vinod Kumar Johari, Resident Of 65 B Bank Colony, Rai Ka Bagh, Jodhpur. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Ms. Shagun Mathur Mr. Saurabh Mathur For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Bhandari HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN MONGA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE YOGENDRA KUMAR PUROHIT

Order (Oral)

02/02/2026 Per : Arun Monga,J

1. Appellants are before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2023 passed by learned Commercial Court No.2, Jodhpur Metropolitan (hereinafter referred to as “the learned trial Judge/Court”) in Civil Suit No.26/2021 (NCV No.22/2019), whereby the learned trial Court directed the appellants to pay sum of Rs.1,98,88,639/- alongwith the interest amounting to Rs.40,08,209, alongwith further 9% interest on Rs.1,98,88,639 from the date of filing the suit till realization, and also to pay compensation amount of Rs.2,00,000/- with legal expenses.

2. The brief facts of the case as stated by the learned counsel of the appellants are that the respondent-M/s Shekhawati Art Exports is a partnership firm engaged in the export of wooden and steel handicrafts since 2001. The firm obtained two Standard Fire and Special Perils Insurance Policies from the appellant–insurer as an account holder of SBI SME Branch. A fire incident occurred on

01.12.2014 at the insured premises.

2.1 The insured lodged a claim of ₹3,49,98,945/-, comprising stock loss of ₹3,11,53,254/-, building loss of ₹38,18,700/-, and ancillary charges. The appellant appointed Shri B. I. Subramaniam, Surveyor, who conducted spot and detailed surveys and submitted his final survey report dated 20.11.2015 after calling for requisite documents.

2.2 During assessment, it emerged that the insured had submitted consolidated stock statements, which could not be independently verified. The Chartered Accountants themselves recorded in statutory audit reports that stock valuation was based solely on partners’ certification. Further, SBI confirmed that stock statements for the month of September–November 2014 were not submitted prior to the fire, in violation of bank norms.

2.3 The insured disclosed for the first time during survey, that one insured premises at EPIP Boranada had been rented out w.e.f. 01.08.2014 to Country Art & Craft LLP, run by close family members of the insured’s partner, without prior intimation to the insurer. Ledger records showed rent entries only after the fire incident. Documentary evidence further revealed commonality of premises between the insured firm and the said LLP, raising serious doubts regarding ownership and location of stock at the time of loss.

2.4 The surveyor assessed total loss at ₹1,21,31,722/- after policy excess. However, the building loss of ₹11,59,283/- was excluded by the insurer, as the building was neither capitalized in the insured’s books nor supported by any lease agreement, establishing absence of insurable interest. Accordingly, the appellants settled the claim at ₹1,10,15,370/-, which was paid to the insured on 11.04.2016 through NEFT.

2.5 The insured disputed the settlement and filed a commercial suit seeking additional amounts. After procedural transfers and restoration, the learned trial Court, by judgment dated 11.12.2023, decreed the suit for ₹1,98,88,863/- with interest and costs, disregarding material evidence and the surveyor’s findings. Aggrieved, the appellants–insurer has preferred the present appeal, as the impugned judgment is perverse, contrary to record, and in violation of settled principles governing insurance c