HINDUSTAN INDUSTRIES Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises against the judgement and the order dated 31.12.2007 passed by the Civil Court in Special Civil Suit No. 61/94, whereby the suit has been dismissed. The short facts of the case appear to be that the factory of the appellant-plaintiff located at Plot No. 28 of Survey No. 275/76 at village Shapar-Veraval was insured with the respondent Insurance Company. As per the plaintiff, on 17.06.1993, at about 12.00 at night, there was fire burst in the factory and the plaintiff sustained damages of Rs. 7,48,750/- plus Rs. 5,04,220/-, the additional damage was caused to the plaintiff. As the insurance company did not pay the amount, the Suit was filed by the plaintiff being Special Civil Suit No. 61/94. The respondent insurance company resisted the suit contending inter alia that it had appointed Mr. V. Trivedi & Co. to assess the loss and damage and as per the report of the said Surveyor and the finding given by him, the fire was not accidental. The defendant-insurance Company contended that as the fire was not accidental and the loss had not occurred due to accidental genuine short circuit fire, the risk was not covered and therefore, the insurance company was not liable to pay the amount. The Civil Court had framed the issue inter alia as to whether the ground of repudiation of the liability by the Insurance Company was genuine or whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of damage from the defendant. The evidence was led by both the parties and ultimately, the Trial Court dismissed the suit by the above referred judgement. It is under these circumstances, the present appeal before this Court.

(2.) We have considered the evidence, which has been made available by the learned advocate for the appellant at the time of hearing of the matter.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant first contended that the finding recorded by the lower Court that the fire was artificial and not accidental is not correct and in his submission, the Surveyor of the Insurance Company had only to opine that what quantum of damage is sustained and could not have opined on the ground of genuineness of the fire or otherwise. He submitted that after the fire, reporting was made to the fire brigade of Rajkot Municipal Corporation and as per the report of the Chief Fire Officer of Rajkot Municipal Corporation, the cause of fire was electric short circuit, therefore, he submitted that when there was already a report of the fire brigade officer, the learned judge could not have relied upon the opinion of the surveyor Shri Trivedi on the ground of genuineness of the fire or otherwise. He therefore submitted that the error has been committed by the Trial Court which deserves to be interfered with.