The Gujarat High Court has held that insurance company cannot refuse to pay compensation for loss due to fire merely based on technical interpretation of proposal form and insurance policy without adducing any evidence. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 226]

The respondent manufactures Polyester Textured Yarn, Draw Textured Yarn, and Partially Oriented Yarn paper tubes whose stock was insured by the Appellant Insurance Company from 12.08.1994 to 11.08.1995 against a premium of Rs.2,616. The Policy covered risks arising out of fire, theft, and short circuits.

On 14.04.1995, an electrical short circuit allegedly occurred within the respondent's factory premises, where a fire broke out and destroyed the stock stored in the godown. The Surveyor appointed by the Appellant inspected the site and submitted his assessment report, while the police drew up a panchnama during the course of their investigation. Since policy purchased by the respondent was in force on the date of incident, it claimed and demanded loss suffered due to destroy of stock by fire.

However the Insurance Company contested the claim contending that the fire broke out in the factory premises solely due to the negligence and fault of the respondent, thereby the insurer is not liable to pay damages. 

The trial court framed issues and permitted both the parties to lead evidence. However on the respondent lead oral and documentary evidence and Insurance Company  did not produce any documentary evidence not did it cross examine the respondent. Thus the trial court decreed the respondent's suit granting compensation of Rs.2 Lakhs with interest at rate of 8% from the date of suit till realization of the amount.

Justice JC Doshi observed that no counter-evidence was adduced by the Appellant - Insurance Company to rebut or dispel the evidence led by the respondent.

Perusing the surveyor's report placed, which covers risk of stock and stock in process, the court said that the insurance company is liable to pay compensation.

" The technical interpretation of proposal form as well as insurance policy without adducing evidence in that regards is not permissible. Nonetheless leaf of policy produce on record cover the risk of stock and stock in progress. This condition is sufficient to cover risk and liability of insurance company for risk purchased. In nutshell, learned Trial Court has rightly earmarked liability upon insurance company to pay loss suffered by plaintiff due to fire. Thus, I see no reason to interfere with impugned judgment. Consequently, the first appeal stands dismissed". 

The appeal was dismissed. 

Case title: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED v/s POOJA PAPER TUBE INDUSTRIES

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 5712 of 2019

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 226

Appearance:

MS KARUNA V RAHEVAR(3818) for the Appellant(s) No. 1

THAKKAR AND PAHWA ADVOCATES(1357) for the Defendant(s) No. 1

Click Here To Read/Download Order

The Gujarat High Court has held that merely threatening without an intention to cause alarm to the complainant would not constitute offence of criminal intimidation. [2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 225]

In doing so the court held that to invoke this offence the complainant must establish that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to him. 

The petitioners had sought quashing of an FIR under IPC Sections 409(Criminal breach of trust by public servant, or by banker, merchant or agent), 504(Intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of the peace), 506(2) (criminal intimidation) read with 114(Abettor present when offence is committed).

It was alleged that the complainant had rented his shop to one Harshadkumar Prabhudas for carrying Optical business. A rent note was executed and the business in the name of Diamond Optical shop was operated by Harshadkumar. When Harshadbhai was not found, the complainant went to the shop and found one Jagdish sitting there. When the complainant asked him about the whereabouts of Harshad, the latter stated that his brother-in-law Arvind had possession of the shop and started using abusive words.

The complainant thereafter alleged that on 10.03.2016 one Bharat Pala came to the complainant's office informed that the shop was taken over from Harshadbhai by Bharatbhai and Arvindbhai and requested the complainant to transfer the rent note in their favour, failing which, he threatened the complainant with serious consequences. After a day or two, Afzalbhai informed the complainant that the key of the shop and the possession is with him, and the complainant was threatened not to make any inquiry about the shop. 

Justice PM Raval in his order said:

" before an offence of criminal intimidation is made out, the complainant must establish that the accused had an intention to cause alarm to the complainant and mere threats given by the accused not with an intention to cause alarm to the complainant but with a view to see that he does not come to his office or place for inquiring would not amount to constitute an offence of criminal intimidation. In the entire FIR, there is no whisper of any allegation by the complainant that the threats which were administered actually caused any alarm to the first informant and that he felt actually threatened...Be that as it may, the fact remains that the entire FIR is silent with regards to the allegations of threats which were administered and actually causing any alarm to the first informant and that he actually well threatened is conspicuously missing, under the circumstances, no case is made out"

The court thus quashed the FIR finding that none of the allegations were proved. 

Case title: HARSHADBHAI PRABHUDAS SHETH & ANR. v/s STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR

R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR QUASHING & SET ASIDE FIR/ORDER) NO. 7935 of 2016

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Guj) 225

Appearance:

MR MAHESH POOJARA FOR MR ASHISH M DAGLI(2203) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2

MS BHAVIKA H KOTECHA(2942) for the Respondent(s) No. 2

MR ROHAN SHAH, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1

Click Here To Read/Download Order