1 Spb/- IN THE HIGH COURT JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL SIDE JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 1107 OF 2002 IN SUIT NO. 1512 OF 1979 Kamani Metals & Alloys Ltd., .. Appellants. (Org.Plaintiffs) V/s. New India Assurance Co.Ltd., .. Defendants/ Respondents. --- Mr. S.A.Bhagwat for the Appellants. Mr.Desai & Diwanji for the Defendants/Respondents. --- CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH AND V.R.KINGAONKAR,JJ. DATED: 07th APRIL, 2010 P.C.: 1. By this Appeal, the Appellant challenges the order passed by the learned single Judge of this court dated 18th July, 2009, dismissing the suit filed by the present Appellant. 2. The Appellant had filed Suit No. 1512/1979 against the Respondent-Insurance Company for recovery of claims on two different policies. One insurance policy is in respect of plant and machinery. The 2 amount of claim was Rs. 1,67,635/- with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The second insurance policy was in respect of loss or damages caused to the goods in process and finished goods. The claim was for recovery of Rs. 3,99,720/- with future interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The learned single Judge on the basis of rival pleadings framed the following issues : 1. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit as stated in paragraph 14 of the written statement? 2. Do Plaintiffs prove to have suffered loss and damages of Rs. 1,67,635/- to the Plant and machinery and Rs.3,99,720/- for stock in process and finished goods as stated in paragraph 13 of the plaint ? 3. Whether such damage/loss is covered by special condition No. 5(i)(b) of suit insurance policies referred to in paragraphs? 4. Are Plaintiffs entitled to recover Rs. 5,67,355/- along with interest from the Defendants ? 5. What decree or order ? 3. The learned single Judge on Issue no. 1 recorded finding against the defendants holding that 3 the court has jurisdiction to try the suit. Sofar as Issue no. 2 is concerned, the court held that the plaintiff suffered loss to the extent as reported by the Surveyor towards damages of plant and machinery as well as stock in process and finished goods. The learned Judge, however, held that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover loss resulting from damage to the plant and machinery due to stoppage of electricity supply. The learned Judge held that the stoppage of electricity supply was because of the strike of the workers. The insurance policy did not cover damage in the eventuality of strike. The learned judge, therefore, dismissed the suit. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for both the sides. Perusal of the record shows that the learned single Judge in paragraph 12 of his Judgment has dealt with the relevant clause of the Insurance Policy taken out by the plaintiff; where there is a clear stipulation that the policy does not cover loss or damage resulting from total or partial cessation of work. The learned single Judge has 4 also mentioned that the plaintiffs could have paid more premium and taken policy which would cover loss due to riots and strike. The learned single Judge has further held that the policy taken out by the plaintiffs did not cover damage caused to the plant and machinery because of stoppage of power supply due to the strike. The learned single Judge also considered the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. M.K.J. Corporation [(1996) 6 S.C.C. 428], which was relied on by the plaintiffs. 5. After having heard the learned counsel appearing for both the sides and after perusing the record, we do not find any error in the judgment of the learned single Judge. The Appeal, therefore, fails and is rejected. 6. Notice of Motion No. 1889 of 2003 is disposed of. (D.K.DESHMUKH,J.) (V.R.KINGAONKAR,J.)