Judgment Kiran Anand Lall, J. 1. Undisputed facts are that M/s. Cargo Tyre Agencies, opposite New Grain Market, G.T. Road, Fazilka, was a partnership concern, having two partners, Dalip Singh and Harjinder Kaur. The firm was carrying on the business of sale and purchase of tyres and tubes, etc., and the stock of tyres, tubes and other goods of like nature, lying in the shop had been got insured by it with the United India Insurance Company Limited, Fazilka (for short, the insurance company), for a sum of rupees three lac, against insurance policy No. 200103/57/1/0012/89-90, for the period from 4.10.1989 to 3.10.1990. The insurance company had issued the cover note (No. 381971) in this behalf on 4.10.1989, covering the risk of loss and damage on account of theft, fire, and strike, etc. 2. On the night intervening 19.12.1989 and 20.12.1989, a theft took place in the shop of the firm, and goods worth rupees two lac, approximately, were stolen. Dalip Singh, one of the partners, lodged a report with the police in this behalf, whereupon a case bearing FIR No. 100 dated 20.12.1989, was registered. Information was given to the Insurance Company also, in this regard. After investigation, the police, ultimately, gave a certificate dated 24.3.1990 to the effect that the theft had remained untraced. Since the stolen goods were insured, the firm lodged a claim with the insurance company, giving loss estimate of Rs. 1,28,514/-. The company got the matter investigated from Anil Kumar Gulati, Chartered Engineer, Street No. 12, Abohar, and S.S.B. Surveyors Private Limited, Sector-17, Chandigarh, and thereafter, approved the claim regarding loss, vide letter dated 26.12.1990 issued by its Branch Manager. The case of the plaintiffs, before the trial court, was that before releasing the amount, the Branch manager demanded Rs. 5000/-, as hush money, from them, which they refused to pay. It was at that stage that a complaint, purporting to have been made by one Shamsher Singh was received by the insurance company, stating that infact, no theft had taken place and the claim lodged by the firm with the company was false. The insurance company got the matter reinvestigated through one Sarwan Singh. During re-investigation, the investigator could not trace out the alleged complainant. He also did not join either of the two partners of the firm in the investigation. In the meantime, police submitted a cancellation report, to the court. The insurance company got the matter reinvestigated through one Sarwan Singh. During re-investigation, the investigator could not trace out the alleged complainant. He also did not join either of the two partners of the firm in the investigation. In the meantime, police submitted a cancellation report, to the court. And, relying upon that cancellation report, the insurance company also repudiated the claim of the firm vide letter dated 31.10.1990. The firm, thereafter, stood dissolved with effect from 1.4.1992. 3. Dalip Singh and Harjinder Kaur plaintiffs, then, filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,93,908/- against the insurance company, on the basis of the insurance policy. The company contested the suit, by denying the genuineness of the claim of the plaintiffs, and pleaded that, infact, no theft had taken place. Locus standi of the plaintiffs to file the suit was challenged and so was the maintainability of the suit in the form it was filed. Plea of non-joinder of necessary parties was also taken up. It was further pleaded that the suit was barred under Section 69 of the Indian Partnership Act. Parties went to trial on the following issues framed on 2.3.1994: 1. Whether plaintiffs is entitled to recover the suit amount with interest at the rate of 18% per annum? OPP 2. Whether suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 4. Whether suit is barred under Section 69 of Indian Partnership Act? OPD 5. Whether plaintiffs have no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 6. Relief. 4. After completion of trial, the trial court dismissed the suit, believing the version of the insurance company. The first appellate court, however, did not agree with the trial court, set aside its verdict, and decreed the suit along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit. 5. The insurance company, thereupon, filed a regular second appeal, bearing No. 607 of 1999, against the decreetal of suit, and the plaintiffs too filed a regular second appeal No. 3152 of 1999, claiming interest at the rate of 18% per annum (as against 6%), on the decreetal amount. 6. Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment, these are being disposed of by a common judgment. 7. 6. Since both the appeals arise out of the same judgment, these are being disposed of by a common judgment. 7. Learned Counsel, representing the appellants (Insurance Company etc.) in RSA No. 607 of 1999, placed on record the following questions, terming those as substantial questions of law: i) Whether the suit is barred on account of bar of Section 69 of Partnership Act? ii) Whether the First appellate Court has misread the evidence and failed to consider material evidence? iii) Who is to prove that the theft had taken place resulting into loss? iv) Whether the court could decree the suit without determining the loss suffered by the plaintiffs on account of theft? But, during arguments both sides addressed this Court, only on the point as to whether the finding of the first appellate court about the claim of theft being genuine, is correct or not? 8. Before the first appellate court, the plaintiffs-appellants had challenged the finding of trial court, on issue No. 1, mainly on the ground that it had wrongly relied upon the cancellation report submitted by the police. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants (in RSA No. 3152 of 1992) pointed out that the cancellation report submitted by the police one year after the occurrence, was never accepted by the Illaqa Magistrate, and as such, the finding of the trial court based on the assumption that the cancellation report had become final, was not sustainable. 9. On being enquired by this Court as to whether there was any evidence on record to indicate that the cancellation report had been accepted by the court, learned Counsel for the insurance company-appellant, replied in the negative. This fact, coupled with the observation of the first appellate court that the cancellation report had not been accepted by the Illaqa Magistrate, is sufficient to conclude that the finding of trial court (on issue No. 1) recorded on the assumption that the cancellation report was accepted by the criminal court, was wrong and without any basis. 10. The factual position, as pointed out during the course of arguments, is that report about the theft had been lodged with the police, without any delay. 10. The factual position, as pointed out during the course of arguments, is that report about the theft had been lodged with the police, without any delay. And, it was admitted by none other than DW1 M.R. Dhingra, Assistant Divisional Manager of the United Insurance Company that finding the claim of the plaintiffs to be genuine on the basis of survey report dated 8.3.1990 (Ex.PW3/2) of the Surveyors appointed by the insurance company, viz. S.S.B. Surveyors & Consultants Private Limited, Sector-17, Chandigarh, the regional office of the company had initially sent its approval for payment of the amount of insurance claim of the plaintiffs. As per the case of the insurance company, the matter was reopened and got re-investigated, on receipt of a complaint from one Shamsher Singh who had claimed that, infact, no theft had taken place in the shop of the plaintiffs, whereas the case of plaintiffs, on the other hand, is that this complaint was got manipulated by the Branch Manager of the company, since they had refused to pay Rs. 5000/- to him, as bribe. Be that as it may, the fact remains that re-investigation of the claim had been got done, after about nine months of the incident of theft, and on the basis of re-investigation report dated 13.9.1990 (Ex.D1), the insurance company rejected the claim of plaintiffs on the ground that no theft had taken place at their shop. Concededly, this second surveyor had not joined the plaintiffs, in the reinvestigation nor he had been able to locate the alleged complainant. That being so, the report made by this (second) Surveyor, at the back of the plaintiffs, could not carry any value in the eyes of law, particularly, when there was other overwhelming oral as well as documentary evidence, including the report of the first surveyor, on the point that the claim lodged by the plaintiffs with the insurance company, was genuine. The view taken by the first appellate court in this regard, while upsetting the finding of the trial court on issue No. 1 is correct and based on legal evidence. 11. No other argument was addressed by either side in RSA No. 607 of 1999. 12. There is no merit in RSA No. 607 of 1999, and the same shall, resultantly, stand dismissed. 13. 11. No other argument was addressed by either side in RSA No. 607 of 1999. 12. There is no merit in RSA No. 607 of 1999, and the same shall, resultantly, stand dismissed. 13. In so far as RSA No. 3152 of 1999, is concerned, no question of law (what to talk of substantial one) arises therein. The interest awarded by the trial court at the rate of 6% per annum is, otherwise also, reasonable. Learned Counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants, infact, did not address any arguments, in this RSA. The same too shall, therefore, stand dismissed. Parties shall bear their own costs, in both the appeals.