CS No. 334 of 1989
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
M/S BANERJEE & BANERJEE
Versus
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE MAHARAJ SINHA
Date : 11th May, 2010.
The Court : The plaintiff instituted the suit way back in the year 1989 against the defendant National Insurance Company Limited, claiming a decree for Rs.12,13,761/- and interest. The plaintiff also claimed interest upon judgment.
The plaintiff's witness, namely the partner of the partnership firm M/s. Banerjee & Banerjee, has given evidence in court today, proving all the documents on which the case of the plaintiff is based. The claims made in the plaint are in respect of valid insurance policy issued by the defendant to insure the building materials. The materials in question were insured by the defendant against burglary. The surveyor of the defendant himself assessed the loss above Rs.8 lakhs after the burglary at the site where building materials were stored. After the said loss was assessed by the defendant's own surveyor, the Commercial Investigation Bureau, the plaintiff thought that the insurance company would make the payment on the basis of the claims made by the plaintiff in respect of the insured materials as those materials were lost due to burglary and the plaintiff was 2
deprived of those materials due to such incident which took place at the plaintiff's site where the plaintiff as a reputed firm was engaged in construction as recognised engineers and contractors. Surprisingly enough, however, in spite of assessment of loss made by the defendant's own surveyor, the defendant has wrongfully and illegally not made any payment as assessed by the defendant's own surveyor or any part thereof till date. The plaintiff had no other alternative but to institute this suit for obtaining relief against the defendant.
I have considered the case of the plaintiff as made out in the plaint thoroughly and the evidence that the plaintiff's witness has given in court today proving, as aforesaid, all the documents on which the case of the plaintiff is based. After having considered the merits of the suit and the evidence on record, I have no doubt in my mind that the defendant most wrongfully and illegally has so far withheld the payments to make good the loss of the materials which were covered by the insurance policy issued by the defendant.
Having regard to the statements made in the plaint and in particular the statements made in paragraphs 23 and 24 thereof, I have no manner of doubt that the suit of the plaintiff should succeed. Although this suit appeared in the list for hearing from time to time, none appeared on behalf of the defendant in the past and none appears today on behalf of the defendant to contest the suit. Since a written statement was filed by the defendant and is on record, I have considered the statements made in the written statement and having considered the written statement and the alleged defence contained therein, I find that the defence set up in answer to the claim or claims of the plaintiff in the plaint should not to be treated as any defence at all, far from any valid defence. The insurance company has merely denied the case of the plaintiff only to frustrate the valid claim lodged by the plaintiff and covered by the insurance policy.
3
Thus there will be a decree for Rs.12,13,761/- as claimed in claim (a) of the plaint. There will also be decree for interest @10% on the above decretal amount, payable from the date of institution of the suit till the date of the decree, i.e. May 11, 2010. There will also be decree for interest @8% per annum from May 12, 2010 till the decree passed herein is satisfied by the defendant. There will also be a decree for costs assessed at Rs.50000/- and the plaintiff will be entitled to this cost over and above the court fees that the plaintiff had to pay for the purpose of institution of this suit. Let the decree be drawn up expeditiously.
(MAHARAJ SINHA, J.)
