PITHAVADIYAN AND PARTNERS Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment in O.S.No.2801 of 1996 on the file of the VIII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

(2.) THE averments in the plaint in brief relevant for the purpose deciding this appeal are as follows:- THE plaintiff is a partnership firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act, carrying on business at Madras. THE defendant is a limited company incorporated under the Companies Act, having its registered office at New Delhi, and carrying on business among other places with its Regional Office at UIL building, Chennai. THE plaintiff as a Firm of Architects and Planners, has been undertaking jobs of designing, planning and supervision of huge constructions. It took out an insurance policy with the defendant for 'Professional Indemnity Insurance for Architect and Consulting Engineers', under which defendant undertook to indemnify the plaintiff against legal liability for bodily injury and property damage including damage to any defects in the object planned, designed or supervised by the plaintiff, if the cause of the damage or loss is attributable to culpable infringement of acknowledged technical rules which may be discovered during the period between 26.05.1982 to 25.05.1983, in the conduct of the plaintiff's business as Architect/Consulting Engineers within India, to the extent of Rs.5,00,000/-. This policy was signed at Madras by the defendant on 17.09.1982. THE plaintiff took up the work of designing, planning and supervising the construction of the Main Factory Building at Hyderabad of AR Expresso Systems India Ltd. On 3rd October 1982 at 1.15 pm, the said building under construction suddenly collapsed, resulting the entire superstructure rumbled down and became dust and debris. This collapse occurred entirely due to inadequancies and deficiencies of design of the construction, by plaintiff. Loss of Rs.11 lakhs suffered by AR Expresso Systems (India) Ltd., had to be borne by the plaintiff. Under the insurance policy the plaintiff claimed Rs.5 lakhs being the insured amount from the defendant. After protracted correspondence, by its letter dated 6.4.1984 the defendant sent a copy of its letter dated 28.2.1984 wherein it had repudiated its liability to pay any amount under the policy on the ground that the collapse of the structure was caused by faulty centering, which is not a contingency covered by the Architects' Indemnity Policy issued to them. Plaintiff has not received the original of the letter dated 28.02.1984 alleged to have been sent by the defendant. THE repudiation of liability by defendant is untenable as the collapse of the structure was not due to 'faulty centering' but owing to inadvertant faulty, designing by the plaintiff. Hence, the suit.

(3.) THE learned trial judge after meticulously weighing the evidence both oral and documentary has come to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief under the plaint and accordingly dismissed the suit with costs, which necessitated the plaintiff to approach this Court by way of this appeal.