RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) PLAINTIFF -respondent purchased a fire insurance cover from the appellant -Insurance Company for the period w.e.f.31.8.2002 to 30.08.2003 on 6.6.2003 on account of sparking in the high tension electric voltage wires crossing over the godown of the plaintiff -respondent.
(2.) EXTENSIVE damage was done to the case of the plaintiff -respondent on account of fire. Plaintiff -respondent filed his claim along with other necessary documents. The defendant -appellants appointed a Surveyor on 8.6.2003 who visited the premises of the plaintiff -respondent and also took photographs of the godowns effected by the fire. Thereafter, the Bank -officials visited the premises on 10.6.2013 and made assessment of the loss suffered by the plaintiff. Total damage to the stock was assessed for Rs. 19,48,503/ -. The DDR was also lodged in this regard. Defendant -Insurance -Company appointed another Surveyor - Sh. Sumant Sood, who visited the premises on 13.6.2003 and took photographs of godowns and other damaged goods, which were lying in the open area. He further sought information with regard to certain items vide his letter dated 13.6.2003. His representative was also made an inventory of its goods and his terms were complied with. Thereafter, plaintiff received no communication from the said Surveyor or other information. In the meantime, salvage of bardana which had started giving foul smell was disposed of for a sum of Rs. 25,000/ - with written advise of Mr. Sumant Sood, Surveyor, since claim was not paid and rebutted by the defendant -Insurance Company. Thus, plaintiff filed the suit.
(3.) THE suit was contested by defendants No.1 and 2 raising various preliminary objections. On merits, it was submitted that as per the assessment of the Surveyor appointed by the respondent -Insurance Company, net loss as Rs. 3,73,791/ - and, thus, claim was repudiated rightly. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. Defendant No.3 was proceeded against ex parte. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed: - 1.Whether the plaintiff is the sole proprietor of M/s Bawa Ram Shiv Kumar Bardana Merchant? OPP 2.Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 19,48,503/ - along with pendente lite and future interest as claimed from defendants due to fire to the godowns of the plaintiff on 6.6.2003? OPP 4.Whether the claim of the plaintiff had already been repudiated by the defendant Insurance Company? OPD 5. Relief ;