^'^ '<s ^ A t3 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shri Diiip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. ApBellant Respondent FirstApReal No.SSQOOS National tnsurance Co. Ltd., Registered Office: Middleton Sfreet, Kolkata (West Bengal) Through- Branch Manager, Branch OfRce No.2, Thakkar Chambers, In frontof Project Automobile, G.E. Road, Power House, Bhilai, Tahsil & Distrifct Durg (C.G.) Versus Suresh & Company, Chikli, Partnership Firm, Office near Bank of Baroda, Ganjpara, Durg, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.) Through-Partner Chandrakumar Jain S/o Late Rajmal Jain, Aged about 64 years, R/o Station Road, Motipara, Durg, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.) First Aooea! under Section 96 of the Cods of dvil_Procedure Present: Shri RajAwasthi, counsel forthe appellant. ORAL ORDER th (Passed on thisZS'" day of July, 2008) Heard on admission. l^. ^ (2) Record is perused. (3) The appeliant/defendant is aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31-01-2008 passed by the 11th Addition/3l District Judge, F.T.C., Durg in Civi! Suit No.4-8/2006 whereby damages of Rs.1,48,000/- with interest were awarded to the respondenVplaintiff against the appeltant/defendant. (4) Shri Raj Awasthi, leamed counsel for the appeltant/defendant submitted at the very outset in this appeai is thatthe appellant does not ^^^^S^"^;i .2-- chalienge the quantum ofcompensation awarded by the 11 Additional District Judge, F.T.C., Durg. The sole ground urged by learned counsel for the appellanVdefendant in this appeal is that the appellant/insurer was liable to indemnify the respondentfplaintiff only in ease of explosion of the boilernot inany other case. However, this isnot borne outfrpm the poiicy Annexurs A-2 filed by the •appellantfinsurer wherein it has been cleariy mentioned that the company had undertaken to indemnify the insured against damages tothe boiters and/or other pressure plast described in the schedule. In this view of the matter.learnedGOunsel for the appellant has failed tosubstantiate the so)e ground urged by him. (5) Since no other point was urged, 1 am of the considered opinion that the learned 11 Additional District-Judge (F.T.C.), Durg has, on proper appreciation of evidence, rightly fastened the liability onthe insurer to indemnify the insured. This appea! has no merit which is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge III ^ Tumane ^ Fiii. -.—4«