JUDGMENT R.L. Khurana, J:- The plaintiff, Himachal Pradesh Civil Supplies Corporation, has filed the present suit for the recovery of Rs.11,14,505/- against the defendant Messrs Oriental Insurance company Ltd., being the amount of insurance claim in respect of damage caused to its stock of sugar due to fire which broke out on 1.5.1989. 2. The plaintiff Corporation is company duly incorporated under the provisions of the companies Act, 1956, having its registered office at Broad- View Hotel, sanjauli, Shimla. The plaintiff is engaged in public distribution of food grains and other essential commodities. It also distributes levy sugar which it is purchasing from various sugar mills at Deoband, Iqbalpur and other places in Uttar Pradesh. The distribution is being made through transporters to various destinations in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The plaintiff had obtained a transit insurance policy from the defendant - company covering risk to the extent of twenty three crores in respect of their consignments of sugar, edible oils, cloth, food grains, salt and such like goods while in transit from anywhere in India to anywhere in India. This insurance policy was for the period 1.4.1989 to 31.3.1990. 3. The plaintiff for the purpose of getting sugar from sugar mills at Deoband and Iqbalpur and for the purpose of distribution and transportation to various destinations in the State had entered into an agreement with Messrs Shimla Truck Malik Union, Hari Niwas, Sanjauli, Shimla, appointing the said Union as its agent. The consignments of sugar sent by Sugar Mills were being received at Chandigarh by the said Truck Union for and on behalf of the plaintiff and stored in the go-down of the Truck Union for further transportation to various destinations in the State as per the directions of the plaintiff. 4. On 1.5.1989, a fire broke out in the office/godown of the Truck Union at Chandigarh. At that time 5316 Quintals of levy sugar belonging to the plaintiff was lying stored in such godown. Out of such stock 1850 Quintals of levy sugar had been despatched to various destinations. The remaining sugar weighing 3466 Quintals was involved in fire. About 2519.64 Quintals of sugar could be salvaged and was sold. The remaining 946.36 Quintals of sugar was completely destroyed in fire. Total value of such destroyed sugar, calculated at the rate of Rs.581.79P per quintal worked out to Rs.6, 65,873.54 paise. The remaining sugar weighing 3466 Quintals was involved in fire. About 2519.64 Quintals of sugar could be salvaged and was sold. The remaining 946.36 Quintals of sugar was completely destroyed in fire. Total value of such destroyed sugar, calculated at the rate of Rs.581.79P per quintal worked out to Rs.6, 65,873.54 paise. A sum of Rs.67, 832.73 paise was spent by the plaintiff during the loss minimisation operation as per the advice of the defendant. Thus, a total claim for Rs.7, 23,703.78 paise was lodged by the plaintiff with the defendant. The claim of the plaintiff was found to be genuine. The defendant, however, instead of allowing the claim vide communication dated 9.10.1991 repudiated the claim. The plaintiff- Corporation has, thus, filed the present suit for the recovery of Rs.l 1,14,505/-, that is, Rs.7,23,703.78 paise plus interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum from 1.5.1989 to 1.5.1992 amounting to Rs.3,90,801/-. 5. The defendant, while resisting the suit, admitted the insurance policy and the occurrence of fire on 1.5.1989. It denied its liability under the insurance policy on the ground that the stock of sugar was not destroyed while in transit. The destination of the consignment was Chandigarh. The consignment was delivered to and received by the plaintiff Corporation in tact at Chandigarh. The sugar lying stored at Chandigarh was not covered by the insurance policy. Therefore the claim was rightly repudiated. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 7.5.1993: 1. Whether Ashok Thakur is competent to file the suit? OPP 2. Whether the policy covers risk from anywhere in India to anywhere in India as contained in policy dated 3.4.1989 and as such, the defendant is liable to pay the insured amount? OPP 3. Whether there is any condition that policy covers only the risk from transit point to the destination point as alleged? OPD 4. Whether the agreement with the Shimla Truck Malik Union is binding on the defendant as the sugar used to be transported on consignment basis, if so, its effect? OPP. 5. Whether the destination point in the policy was at Chandigarh alleged? OPD 6. Whether defendants are liable to pay the loss suffered by the plaintiff if so, to what extent? OPP 7. To what rate of interest the plaintiff is entitled to? OPP 8. OPP. 5. Whether the destination point in the policy was at Chandigarh alleged? OPD 6. Whether defendants are liable to pay the loss suffered by the plaintiff if so, to what extent? OPP 7. To what rate of interest the plaintiff is entitled to? OPP 8. Whether there was no policy in force on 1.5.1989 at the time when the fire broke out in the godown of Shimla Truck Malik Union as alleged? OPD 9. Whether the suit is not competent and maintainable as alleged? OPD 10. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit as alleged? OPD 11. Relief. 7. Consequent upon the amendment of the written statement, by the defendant, on additional issue was framed on 22.5.1997 as under:- 10 A whether the suit is not within time as alleged? OPD 8. Both the parties have led oral as well as documentary evidence. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. My findings on the above issues are as under: Issue No. 1. 9. During the course of hearing the learned counsel for the defendant had readily conceded that the suit has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff Corporation by a duly authorised and competent person. The issue is as such decided in favour of the plaintiff Corporation. Issue No. 2. 10. It is not disputed by the defendant that the insurance policy covered the risk of the consignments during transit "from anywhere in India to anywhere in India" and that the defendant is liable to pay the damages caused to the consignment(s) while in transit. The issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff Corporation. Issue No.4. 11. 10. It is not disputed by the defendant that the insurance policy covered the risk of the consignments during transit "from anywhere in India to anywhere in India" and that the defendant is liable to pay the damages caused to the consignment(s) while in transit. The issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff Corporation. Issue No.4. 11. Admittedly, the defendant was not a party to the agreement Ex.PWl/2 dated 27.5.1988 arrived at between the Plaintiff Corporation and Messrs Shimla Truck Malik Union whereby the said Truck Union was appointed and authorised by the plaintiff Corporation as its agent, inter alia, for the following purpose: (a) to take delivery of levy sugar at Chandigarh from various Sugar Mills and to make payment of freight for each consignment on behalf of the plaintiff Corporation; vide clause 3 of the agreement, and (b) the Truck Union would be responsible to transport sugar from Chandigarh to various destinations in the State of Himachal Pradesh and to deliver the same to the godowns incharge of the plaintiff Corporation as per dispatch plan given to it (vide clauses 6 and 8 of the agreement.) 12. A bare reading of the agreement shows that the same pertains to internal arrangement/management of the affairs of the plaintiff Corporation appointing and authorizing the above named Truck Union to act on its behalf. Therefore, the same is not binding on the defendant. The issue is decided against the plaintiff Corporation. Issues No. 9 and 10 13. The present issues were not pressed by the learned counsel for the defendant during the course of hearing. The same are as such decided against the defendant. Issue No. I0A 14. under Art. 44 (b) of the Limitation Act, 1963, a period of three years is provided for filing a suit to recover damages sustained on account of any loss under an insurance policy. The time starts running against the plaintiff either - (a) on the date of occurrence of the loss; or (b) on the date on which the claim is denied by the insurance company. 15. In the present case, the loss due to fire, admittedly, occurred to the plaintiff Corporation on 1.5.1989. The claim of the plaintiff Corporation was denied/repudiated by the defendant on 9.10.1991. The defendant has nowhere denied the date of such repudiation of the claim. The repudiation of the claim has been admitted by the defendant. Ex. 15. In the present case, the loss due to fire, admittedly, occurred to the plaintiff Corporation on 1.5.1989. The claim of the plaintiff Corporation was denied/repudiated by the defendant on 9.10.1991. The defendant has nowhere denied the date of such repudiation of the claim. The repudiation of the claim has been admitted by the defendant. Ex. PW 2/5 is the copy of the letter dated 9.10.1991 issued by the defendant to the plaintiff Corporation repudiating the claim. 16. The period of limitation in the present case therefore, will have to be reckoned from 9.10.1991. The present suit was filed on 11.6.1992. The same having been filed within the prescribed period of three years from the date of repudiation of the claim, that is, 9.10.1991, is within time. The issue is decided against the defendant. Issues No.3, 5 and 8: 17. All these three issues are being taken up together as these are corelated and interconnected. 18. Ex. PW. I/A is the original insurance policy. It is the admitted case of the parties that vide this policy the risk covered in respect of each consignment of sugar, edible oils, cloth, food grains, salt etc. while in transit from anywhere in India to anywhere in India. 19. It is the admitted case of the plaintiff that the stock of sugar at the time of fire was lying stored in the godown of Messrs Shimla Truck Malik Union at Chandigarh for being despatched to various destinations in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Such stock of sugar was received at Chandigarh from. Deoband Iqbalpur vide good receipts Ex.PW.3/1 to PW.3/12. In all these good receipts the name of the plaintiff Corporation is mentioned as the consignee. However, it is mentioned further that the consignment is to be delivered to Messrs Shimla Truck Malik Union at Chandigarh. There is no denying that all consignments made vide Ex.PW.3/A to PW.3/12 were duly delivered to and received by the said Truck Union as agent of the plaintiff Corporation. 20. It is well settled principle of law that delivery to the agent is delivery to the principal/ therefore, upon delivery of the consignments of sugar at Chandigarh to Messrs Shimla Truck Malik Union at Chandigarh as agent of the plaintiff Corporation would be deemed to be delivery to the plaintiff Corporation. 20. It is well settled principle of law that delivery to the agent is delivery to the principal/ therefore, upon delivery of the consignments of sugar at Chandigarh to Messrs Shimla Truck Malik Union at Chandigarh as agent of the plaintiff Corporation would be deemed to be delivery to the plaintiff Corporation. As stated above, the stock of sugar was lying stored at Chandigarh in the godown of the said Truck Union as agent of the plaintiff Corporation. In other words, such stock of sugar would be deemed to be lying stored in the godown of the plaintiff Corporation. 21. Once the consignment of sugar is shown to have been delivered to the plaintiff Corporation through its agent and the same was kept stored in the godown, such stock of sugar cannot be said to be in transit. The insurance policy Ex. PW.I/A would cease to remain operative the moment the stock of sugar was received at Chandigarh by the plaintiff Corporation through its agent. Such policy would have again become operative only when such stock of sugar was despatched from Chandigarh to various destinations in the State of Himachal Pradesh till the same reached such destinations. The policy Ex. PW. 1 /A would not cover the risk during the period the stock of sugar lay stored in the godown of the agent of the plaintiff Corporation. 22. Much reliance was placed on behalf of the plaintiff Corporation on clause 5 dealing with the duration of the policy. Such clause reads:- "This insurance attaches from the time the goods leave the ware house and/or the store at the place named in the policy for the commencement of transit and continues during the ordinary course of transit including customary transshipment, if any, (i) Until delivery to the final warehouse at the destination named in the Policy, or (ii) in respect of transits by Rail only or Rail and Road, until expiry of 7days after arrival of the railway wagon at the final destination railway station, or (iii) in respect of transits by road only until expiry of 7 days after arrival the vehicle at the destination town named in the policy, which ever shall first occur." 23. It was contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff Corporation that the risk covered under the policy extended till seven days after the consignment of sugar were received at Chandigarh and since the fire broke out and stock of sugar was damaged within seven days of the arrival of consignments at Chandigarh, the defendant was liable. 24. I do not find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff Corporation. The insurance policy in the present case had ceased to remain operative the moment the consignments of sugar were received by the agent of the plaintiff Corporation at Chandigarh and kept stored in the godown after having unloaded the same from the vehicles. The period of seven days prescribed under clause 5, quoted above, would not apply to the stock received and kept in the godown. Such period has been prescribed only for the purpose of enabling the consignee to unload the same for being kept in the warehouse and/or godown. This seven days period covers the risk only so long as the consignment has not been unloaded after it has reached its destination. Sub-clause (i) of Clause 5 specifically stipulates that the policy would remain operative till the goods are delivered to the final warehouse at the destination. In the present case, the destination of the consignments of sugar vide Ex.PW.3/1 to PW.3/12 was Chandigarh and such consignments were delivered at the warehouse of the plaintiff Corporation through its agent. Therefore, the stock of sugar destroyed in fire cannot be said to have been destroyed while in transit and as such the defendant is not liable. The three issues are decided in favour of the defendant. Issue No. 6: 25. Even if it be assumed that the plaintiff Corporation has suffered damages to the tune of Rs.7, 23,711/- as assessed by the surveyor appointed by the defendant vide report Ex.PW.4/3, which report has been admitted by the defendant, the plaintiff Corporation, in view of the findings recorded under Issues No.3, 5 and 8 above, is not entitled to any damages. The issue is decided against the plaintiff Corporation. Issue No. 7: 26. This issue has become redundant in view of the findings recorded under issue No. 6 above that the plaintiff - Corporation is not entitled to any amount by way of damages from the defendant. The issue is accordingly decided. Relief: 27. The issue is decided against the plaintiff Corporation. Issue No. 7: 26. This issue has become redundant in view of the findings recorded under issue No. 6 above that the plaintiff - Corporation is not entitled to any amount by way of damages from the defendant. The issue is accordingly decided. Relief: 27. As a result, the present suit fails and the same is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.