FA/97/1987 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 97 of 1987 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= PUNIT READYMNADE STORES - Appellant(s) Versus NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR YN OZA for Appellant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 13/05/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. This Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned City Civil Judge, Court No. 3, City Civil Court, FA/97/1987 2/4 JUDGMENT Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No. 697 of 1982 dated 26.02.1986 whereby, the said suit was dismissed. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the appellant, original plaintiff, was engaged in the business of selling ready-made clothes and hosieries in his shop bearing Shop No.4/15/63. On 05.02.1980, the appellant insured the goods lying in the said shop with the respondent – Insurance Company for Rs.50,000/-. The policy for the same was issued by the respondent on 08.04.1980. 2.1 Thereafter, on 27.02.1981, an Agent of the respondent visited the shop of the appellant and informed that the insurance with respect to the shop in question expired on 05.02.1981 and that he was required to pay an amount of Rs.152/- for its renewal. 2.2 On 28.02.1981, at around 1300 hrs., the said shop of the appellant was burnt by protesters of some anti-reservation group on account of which the goods lying in the said shop got partially damaged. It was the case of the appellant that since he had paid the requisite amount of premium towards the insurance of the said shop on 27.02.1981, for which a temporary receipt was also issued by the authorized Agent of the respondent at the relevant point of time, FA/97/1987 3/4 JUDGMENT the respondent was liable to make good the loss caused on account of the said fire. 2.3 Several communications were sent by the appellant to the respondent regarding the claim for damages caused in the said fire. However, no heed was paid to the said communications / requests made by the appellant. Therefore, the appellant preferred the suit in question before the trial Court. 2.4 In the said suit, the respondent filed its written statement at Exhibit – 14. The trial Court framed the issues. After hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record, the trial Court dismissed the suit of the appellant. Hence, this Appeal. 3. Heard learned Advocate for the appellant and perused the documents on record. Though served none appears on behalf of the respondent. The main contention raised by the appellant is that the respondent – Insurance Company was liable to make good the loss occurred in the fire in question as there existed a valid insurance contract between the parties. The Court below, after considering the evidence on record, has arrived at the conclusion that there did not exist any valid insurance contract between the FA/97/1987 4/4 JUDGMENT parties since there was no valid acceptance of the same from the side of the respondent. In the absence of a valid acceptance, the contract cannot be said to be complete. The payment of premium and the retention thereof, does not give any rise to a contract unless a valid acceptance in there. 4. In my opinion, the Court below has rightly dismissed the suit of the appellant as there did not exist any valid contract between the parties. I am in complete agreement with the reasonings given by and the findings arrived at by the Court below and hence, find no reasons to interfere in this Appeal. 5. For the foregoing reasons, the Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. [K. S. JHAVERI, J.] Pravin/*