RADHARANI FOOD INDUSTRIES Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ application has been filed with a prayer to direct opposite parties to settle the claim regarding damage caused at the petitioner's mill on account of fire accident and to pay the said amount to the petitioner's mill.

(2.) According to Mr. U.K. Samal, learned counsel for the petitioner, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner mill had participated in Kharif Marketing Season 2013-2014 and had procured paddy for milling. The paddy so procured, were stored in the godown of the petitioner's mill. As per Clause 23 of the agreement under Annexure-A/2 executed between the petitioner's mill and Odisha State Civil Supplied Corporation Limited (opposite party no.2) for KMS 2013-14 it was specifically mentioned as follows:

(3.) Opposite party nos.2 and 3 have filed their counter affidavit. Relying on the said counter affidavit Mr. Mishra denied the allegations and submitted that the opposite party nos.2 and 3 have taken various steps for settling the claim. The same would be clear from Annexure-7 by which opposite party no.2 intimated the opposite party no.4 about the fire accident, approximate value of damage and requested for deputing a surveyor to assess the damage/loss of the stock and for settling the claim of the petitioner. It is their further stand is that the petitioner has not deposited the entire insurance premium with opposite party no.2 rather opposite party no.2 has insured the entire stock available with the petitioner and all other custom millers of the State for KMS 2013-14 on payment of the insurance premium by opposite party no.2 itself. Subsequently, the premium paid was received from the petitioner by way of adjustment from its bills. Their further stand is that as per the terms of the agreement at Clause-23, opposite party no.2 should not be held responsible for any damage of stock kept unscientifically and in unsafe manner at the mill premises. Further relying on Clause-25(xi) of the agreement under Annexure-A/2, the opposite party nos. 2 and 3 have taken the stand that in case of shortage in paddy and rice due to happening of fire, the miller is liable to pay the economic cost. It is also their case that though the miller agreed to mill good quality paddy of Q 14000.00 as per Annexure-9 which was found after fire accident, instead of delivering Q10292.00 rice, only Q2778.00 of rice was delivered leaving balance of Q7513.94 rice. In reply to Paragraph-17 of the writ application, the above noted opposite parties submitted that opposite party no.2 represented before the insurance company for resurvey so as to confirm the first survey report. However, as the fire claim was rejected by the insurance company, in the audit, damage on account of fire claim has been included in the liability of the petitioner. In this context, Mr. Mishra relied on Clauses 23 and 25 (xi) of the Agreement under Annexure-A/2.