L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the defendants-Insurance company against the judgment and decree dated 1-4-1991 in OS. No. 132 of 1989 of the Subordinate Judge, Nizamabad. The respondent is the plaintiff in the suit. ( 2 ) THE respondent is a bidi leaves contractor. During the year 1986, he had undertaken the contract of collection and storing of bidi leaves at Burgampad village, khammam District He had two approved godowns, which are premises bearing nos. 1-103 and 4-41 situated at Burgampad. The respondent had taken up two insurance polices with the appellants to cover the risks of fire, damage, etc. Both the policies were taken on 2-9-1986 and were to be in force for one month. The 1st policy (Ex. A-1) was for a sum of Rs. 5-00 lakhs and covered the stock of 2,500 trade bags of bidi leaves, out of which 1,500 bags are kept in the godown bearing No. 1-103 and 1000 bags in the godown bearing No. 4-41. The 2nd policy was also for a sum of Rs. 5-00 lakhs, covering the stock of 2,500 trade bags, which are stored in godown bearing no. 1-103. It was the case of the respondent that for the purpose of drying, certain stock of bidi leaves from godown bearing no. 1-103 was brought to the godown at d. No. 4-41. ( 3 ) IT was the case of the respondent that on the intervening nights of 22nd and 23rd september, 1986, fire broke out at the go-down at D. No. 4-41 and stock of about 2,300 trade bags of bidi leaves were gutted. The respondent valued the same at rs. 10,32,516/- and submitted a claim to the appellants for Rs. 10,00,000/ -. The appellants also got the damage assessed through their Surveyor, who in turn submitted a report stating that a quantity of 2,300 trade bags was involved in the fire, its value comes to Rs. 6,03,520/- and since the coverage as far as the godown at d. No. 4-41 is only to the extent of 1000 bags i. e. , for a sum of Rs. 2-00 lakhs (@ Rs. 200/- per bag), he recommended the payment of that amount duly deducting the salvage value, which was assessed at Rs. 4-00 lakhs. The appellants offered to pay 75% of the amount recommended by their Surveyor in final settlement. 2-00 lakhs (@ Rs. 200/- per bag), he recommended the payment of that amount duly deducting the salvage value, which was assessed at Rs. 4-00 lakhs. The appellants offered to pay 75% of the amount recommended by their Surveyor in final settlement. Not being satisfied with the same, the respondent filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 10,00,000/ -. ( 4 ) THE appellants filed a written statement and disputed the claim. According to them, the respondent had violated the conditions of the policy and, as such, not entitled to be paid any amount and that even otherwise at the most he is entitled for the damage caused to 1000 trade bags. ( 5 ) THE trial Court framed the following issues:" (1) Whether the insurance policies taken by defendants cover damage by flood, inundation, cyclone, hurricane, typhoon and other perils or they cover only fire damages, risk, damage and stricken damage, and malicious damages? (2) Whether there were floods and heavy rains in Sept. , 1986? (3) Whether defendants suggested that if plaintiff agrees for 75% loss as assessed by Surveyor, it would be recommended? (4) Whether the plaintiff suppressed the facts that bidi leaves are affected by floods in Aug. 1986 and by misrepresentation the plaintiff obtained policy No. 51603/1/409/ 86? (5) Whether the plaintiff informed fire brigade or police regarding fire?" on behalf of the respondent, P. Ws. 1 to 6 were examined and documents Exs. A-1 to a-40 were marked. On behalf of the appellants, DW. 1 was examined and the document Exs. B-1 to B-13 were marked. The trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for through its judgment dated 1-4-1991. The appellants challenged the same in this appeal. ( 6 ) HEARD the arguments of Sri ramachandra Reddy. Gadi, the learned standing Counsel for the appellants and Sri n, Subba Reddy, the learned senior counsel for the respondent. ( 7 ) THE fact that policies under Exs. A-1 and A-2 were taken by the respondent covering the stock of 5,000 trade bags of bidi leaves and insured for a sum of rs. 10. 00 lakhs is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the fire broke out on the intervening nights of 22nd and 23rd september, 1986. The learned counsel for the appellants did not dispute these two aspects. 10. 00 lakhs is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the fire broke out on the intervening nights of 22nd and 23rd september, 1986. The learned counsel for the appellants did not dispute these two aspects. Therefore, the only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to the entitlement of the respondent under the polices on account of the fire accident. ( 8 ) THE fire accident had taken place at the premises bearing D. No. 4-41. The policy under Ex. A-1 covers the stock stored partly at the godown at D. No. 1-103 and partly at godown at D. No. 4-41. The policy under ex. A2 covers the stock, which are stored at the godown at D. No. 1-103. Therefore, we are not concerned with the 2nd policy. Now it has to be seen as to the quantity of the stock covered by Ex. A-1 policy gutted in the fire accident and what is the entitlement of the respondent. ( 9 ) THE coverage under Ex. A-1 is rs. 5,00,000/- for the stock of 2,500 trade bags. Therefore, the coverage for each bag should be taken as Rs. 200/ -. It is stated in the policy under Ex. A-1 that out of the stock of 2,500 trade bags of bidi leaves insured with the appellants, 1,500 trade bags are kept at the godown at D. No. 1-103 and 1000 bags at D. No. 4-41. Further, it is the case of the respondent that after obtaining the permission from the various officials, he had shifted some more stocks from the go-down at D. No. 1-103 to the godown at d. No. 4-41 for the purpose of drying the bidi leaves. The appellants contend that shifting of the stock from one godown to the other was contrary to conditions of the policies and irrespective of the amount of stock that was gutted at the godown at D. No. 4-41, their liability should be restricted only to 1000 bags. However, it is to be seen that by the very nature of the business, the stock needs to be shifted from place to place either for the purpose of drying or to protect from rain. It is not possible for the respondent to approach the appellants each and every time they intend to shift the stock from place to place. However, it is to be seen that by the very nature of the business, the stock needs to be shifted from place to place either for the purpose of drying or to protect from rain. It is not possible for the respondent to approach the appellants each and every time they intend to shift the stock from place to place. It has come in the evidence both oral as well as documentary that shifting had taken place with the permission of the forest officials and that the stock, which was shifted, was covered under the policies. Therefore, the objection of the appellants in this regard cannot be sustained. ( 10 ) NOW it remains to be seen as to the exact quantity of the stock that was gutted in the fire accident. The earliest information furnished by the respondent to the appellants is contained in his telegram under Ex. B-4, which was received by the appellants on 26-9-1986. In this telegram, the respondent stated that 2,000 trade bags of bidi leaves were burnt at Burgampad. Subsequently, the respondent revised this figure to 2,300 bags while submitting the claim statement (Ex. B-6 ). Without going deep into that controversy, we take the figure furnished by the respondent at the earliest point of time as correct. Therefore, it should be taken that 2,000 trade bags of bidi leaves were gutted in the fire accident. ( 11 ) COMING to the extent of the damage of stock and entitlement of the respondent, the learned counsel for the appellants submits that the respondent is entitled only for the insured value of the number of bags gutted in the fire accident and market value of the stock has nothing to do with the same. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that the insurance coverage cannot be taken bag-wise and he is entitled to be compensated for the damage caused to him on account of the fire accident, subject to the ceiling of the two policies. According to the learned counsel, 2,300 trade bags of bidi leaves were gutted in the fire accident, that those bags contain about 1,18,680 Kgs. of leaves and cost of each kilogram of leaves being 8-70 ps, the total loss comes to rs. 10,32,516-00 and the claim is restricted to rs. 10,00,000/ -. We have taken the view that the policy under Ex. of leaves and cost of each kilogram of leaves being 8-70 ps, the total loss comes to rs. 10,32,516-00 and the claim is restricted to rs. 10,00,000/ -. We have taken the view that the policy under Ex. A-2 has to be totally disassociated with the suit claim inasmuch as no part of the stock insured thereunder are stocked at the place where the fire accident had taken place. ( 12 ) SO far as the value is concerned, we are of the view that if the total coverage of rs. 5,00,000/- is distributed for 2,500 trade bags, the coverage for each bag will be rs. 200/ -. It was not the case of the respondent either in the trial Court or before this Court that the quality or quantity of each bag varied from the other and, therefore, the coverage in respect of one bag is different from the other. The contention that irrespective of the coverage, the real market value has to be compensated is too difficult to be accepted having regard to the nature of the coverage and type of goods. The trial Court had simply impressed by the facts and figures furnished by the respondent and did not make an endeavour as to the actual coverage under the policies. When the stocks covered by Ex. A-2 were not at all stored either partly or entirety at the godown at D. No. 4-41, there was no basis for awarding the amount against that policy also. Even against the policy under Ex. A-1, when only part of the stock was gutted in the fire accident, there was no justification for awarding the entire amount covered by the policy. The respondent was entitled to recover the insured value for 2,000 trade bags at the rate of Rs. 200/- per bag, which comes to Rs. 4-00 lakhs. We are informed that an amount of Rs. 3,85,000/- was already deposited by the appellants soon after the decree of the trial Court and the same has been withdrawn by the respondent. Having regard to the fact that some margin has to be given to the salvage value and that the appellants had to incur the expenditure in prosecuting the litigation, we are of the view that the ends of justice would be met if we restrict the decree of the trial Court to rs. 3,85,000/- which was already paid by the appellants. 3,85,000/- which was already paid by the appellants. We accordingly, modify the decree of the trial Court to Rs. 3,85,000/ -. since the said amount Was already paid, it will not carry any interest. The decree of the trial Court is accordingly modified and the appeal is allowed in part. However, in the circumstances of the case, each party shall bear their own costs.