INDIGENOUS POULTRY BREEDING Vs. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, vide judgment and decree dated 12th December, 2005 dismissed the suit filed by plaintiff M/s Indigenous Poultry Breeding and Research Farm against Punjab and Sindh Bank and United India Insurance Company for recovery of Rs.12,31,590.32/-. Aggrieved from the dismissal of the suit, plaintiff/appellant has filed the present Regular First Appeal. The appellant, which is a partnership concern, through its registered partner, Shri J.S. Chatwal, filed the suit for recovery of the said amount on the ground that they had obtained certain credit facilities from respondent No.2 for agricultural purposes. The appellant was to get its entire stock of feed, medicine, poultry breed, eggs, birds and buildings constructed at the site, namely, 38/6 Mile Stone, National Highway No.8, Manesar Road, Village Khandsa, Gurgaon (Haryana). It was specifically agreed between the appellant and respondent No. 2 that in case of any loss occurring to the insured material or part thereof, the amount realized from the Insurance Company would be credited to the account of appellant. Insurance Policy No. 40400/01/10021669 was taken in the name of Punjab and Sindh Bank without any reference to the appellant. Even then, it was clearly stated to the appellant by the bank that on realization of the compensation amount from the Insurance Company, the credit thereof would be given to the appellant by the bank. It is the case of the appellant that due to misfortune, there occurred a devastating storm and flood during the night of 29th/30th June, 1981 and in a flash, the entire poultry farm including its sheds were flooded by the swift flood water 3-4 ft. deep which completely damaged the entire stock, medicines, feed, etc. The appellant wrote a letter to the bank informing them of the loss and also requiring them to lodge the claim with the Insurance Company. Whenever the appellant tried to get information from the office of the bank, it was stated that the policy did not cover tempest and floods. Despite best efforts of the appellant, the insurance policy cover in the correspondence was not given to the appellant. In September, 1981, the appellant met Shri B.R. Suri, respondent no.5, who was manager of the bank at the relevant time. Shri B.R. Suri was required and directed by the said authorities to furnish the details which still were not furnished. In furtherance to the communication dated 16.6.1982 received by respondent No.4, the appellant's representative met the Regional Manager of the Insurance Company, who directed a survey at the poultry farm premises. When the survey was carried out at the premises, to the best knowledge of the appellant, the surveyor had accepted the loss but the exact report was not known and the claim was not paid. According to the appellant either of the defendant was liable to make good the loss suffered, and on the basis of the above, claims the following amount:-

(2.) The suit was contested by the respondents who took up various preliminary objections including misjoinder of cause of action and that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.19,14,009.73/- on 13th December, 1983 in the Court of Senior Sub-Judge, Gurgaon being suit no. 1431/83. According to the respondents, the appellant was guilty of suppressio veri. The allegations made in the plaint were denied and it was stated that the appellant neither lodged any claim with the Insurance Company nor brought the details of the alleged loss to the notice of the bank. The appellant because of his own conduct is barred from seeking interference of the Court. The credit facility was granted against hypothecation of goods and the surveyors appointed did not accept the claim as the appellant had failed to produce any document in support of the alleged loss. The suit is a counter-blast to the suit of recovery filed by the respondent. On the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court vide Order dated 14th May, 1998, framed as many as 16 issues which read as under:-

(3.) The appellant examined its managing partner who tendered his evidence as Ex.PA. As recorded in the judgment, ex-parte arguments were heard and finally vide judgment and decree dated 12th December, 2005, the total claim of the appellant was rejected by the Court and the suit was dismissed. The basic argument raised on behalf of the appellant in the present appeal is that the impugned judgment and decree does not specify the canons of judicial pronouncements. The evidence led by the appellant has not been discussed and, in fact, no reasons much less any plausible reasons have been recorded for rejecting the claim of the appellant. When this appeal came up for hearing before this Bench on 12th February, 2007, the Court had passed the following Order:-