ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY Vs. PURNIMA ENTERPRISES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendants -appellants have filed this first appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 17.1.2001 passed by Sri Subodh Kumar, the learned Subordinate Judge 5th, Muzaffarpur in Title Suit No. 59 of 1992 decreeing the plaintiff -respondent's money suit.

(2.) THE plaintiff -respondent filed the aforesaid suit claiming a decree for Rs. 17,00,000/ - from the appellants. The plaintiff claimed the said relief on the facts inter alia that the plaintiff is a small scale industries unit and is a partnership firm which carries of the business of manufacturing Box Strapping Jericane (Plastic Container) and reprocess raw materials from PP/HDPE Granales. The raw materials such as Polypropelene, Koyelene, Master Batch, Pigments, Titanium etc. were purchased from countrywide manufactures and were stored in the godown. The scrapes were purchased from local venders and were stored in open field and the costly finished products were stored in the godown whereas voluminous products were stored in open field.

(3.) THE further case of the plaintiff is that since loan was obtained from Central Bank of India, the plaintiff was submitting the statements and was also submitting periodic sales tax returns. As per the stock statement submitted at the end of March 1989 the stock value was Rs. 10,79,700/ -. On the basis of the said statement submitted on 31.3.1989 and goods receipt register, sales register, the stock of raw materials and finished goods, the total damage was calculated at Rs. 8,17,000/ -. The appellants deputed Sri A.K. Nathani as a surveyor to visit the plaintiff's factory who visited on 1.5.1989 and inspected the books of account and other documents and he was satisfied that the plaintiff sustained loss of Rs. 8,17,000/ - due to fire. However, the defendants -appellants appointed another surveyor Mr. N.N. Jha who also inspected the business premises and documents. Thereafter the plaintiff ran from pillar to post and requested the defendants -appellants to settle the claim amount and also sent several letters but in spite of the same the defendants delayed the settlement and lastly on 10.4.1991 sent a loss voucher of Rs. 72,020/ - only as full and final settlement against the claim of the plaintiff of Rs. 8,17,000/ -. The plaintiff refused to accept the loss voucher and thereafter filed the suit claiming Rs. 17,00,000/ - including interest @ 18% and also loss of profits, name, fame, credit and goodwill and loss of current and prospective business caused by the defendants.