Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

The suit was filed by the insured under a standard fire and special perils policy against the insurer for recovery of a sum of Rs.6,82,49,000/- with interest thereon at 24% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realization.

2. The Plaintiff is a proprietary concern, represented by its proprietor, Mr.K.Sekar. The Plaintiff is engaged in the business of selling garments. The Plaintiff stated that its stocks-in-trade are purchased from suppliers either on cash and carry or credit basis, and that the monthly _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm. Div) No.444 of 2017 turnover is about Rs.25,00,000/-. For purposes of the above business, the Plaintiff established a showroom in Thiruvannamalai on 29.08.2012 in premises measuring about 7500 sq.ft. and consisting of three floors. According to the Plaintiff, garments were purchased and stocked in the said premises. The Plaintiff also incurred expenditure towards infrastructure such as false ceiling, electrical work, facelift, wood and glass work and air- conditioning. The shop was insured by the first and second Defendants(the Insurer) under a standard fire and special perils policy bearing Policy No.012102/11/13/11/00000470, which was valid from 17:00 hours on 25.03.2014 until midnight of 24.03.2015. The insured perils were enumerated in the policy and covered 12 perils such as fire, lightning, explosion, storm, etc. The sum insured under the policy is Rs.6,82,49,000/-. The original copy of the insurance policy was mortgaged with the Bank of Baroda, Thiruvannamalai Branch, the third Defendant herein.

3. The Plaintiff stated that there was a fire at the shop on 20.10.2014 at about 8:00 p.m. On the same date, the Plaintiff was informed about the fire. Therefore, the Plaintiff lodged a police complaint, which was registered under Crime No.536 of 2014 on the file of the Inspector of _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm. Div) No.444 of 2017 Police, Town Police Station, Thiruvannamalai. The Plaintiff informed the Insurer about the fire accident and submitted a claim on 24.10.2014 for a sum of Rs.7,49,32,000/-. The said claim covered the value of stock, electrical equipments and other fittings. The police authorities investigated the cause of the accident on the basis of the report of the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and the Assistant Director of the Tamil Nadu Forensic Sciences Department. On such basis, the final report dated 27.10.2015 was filed before the Judicial Magistrate No.1, Thiruvannamalai, stating that the fire was caused accidentally.

11. The parties filed written submissions. Oral submissions on behalf of the Plaintiff were made by Mr.M.Santhanaraman, learned counsel; on behalf of the first and second Defendants by M/s.Nageswaran and Narichania, learned counsel; and on behalf of the third Defendant by Mr.P.V.Ramachandran, learned counsel.

Issue No.1

12. Issue No.1 relates to the jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit. The Insurer asserted that the Plaintiff's shop was at Thiruvannamalai, the insurance policy was taken from the Branch Office at Thiruvannamalai and the accident occurred at Thiruvannamalai. Therefore, the Insurer contended that this Court does not have territorial jurisdiction. This contention was refuted by the Plaintiff on the basis that the first Defendant has its registered office and carries on business at Chennai within the jurisdiction of this Court. The Plaintiff also stated that Application No.2063 of 2017 was filed to grant leave to institute the suit before this Court. The _____________ https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.(Comm. Div) No.444 of 2017 said application was allowed by order dated 06.04.2017 after considering the submission of the Applicant/Plaintiff that the first Defendant has an office in Chennai, which is within the jurisdiction of the Court. The Plaintiff contended that the Insurer did not file an application to revoke leave. In support of the contention that this Court does not have jurisdiction, the Insurer relied on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s.Patel Roadways Ltd. Bombay v. M/s.Prasad Trading Company, AIR 1992 SC 1514 (Patel Roadways), and, in particular, paragraphs 9 & 10 of the said judgment. On the other hand, the Plaintiff relied upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in V.Selladurai v. Nethaji and another, 2006 SCC Online Mad 781, wherein, this Court relied upon Clause 12 of the Letters Patent and concluded that a suit may be instituted either where the defendant resides, carries on business, or personally works for gain, or where the cause of action arises wholly or in part. The Plaintiff also pointed out that Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the CPC) is not applicable to suits filed on the original side of this Court by virtue of Section 120 thereof. Instead, the relevant provision is Clause 12 of the Letters Patent.