Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—The present appeal arises against the judgement and the order dated 31.12.2007 passed by the Civil Court in Special Civil Suit No. 61/94, whereby the suit has been dismissed. 2. The short facts of the case appear to be that the factory of the appellant-plaintiff located at Plot No. 28 of Survey No. 275/76 at village Shapar-Veraval was insured with the respondent Insurance Company. As per the plaintiff, on 17.06.1993, at about 12.00 at night, there was fire burst in the factory and the plaintiff sustained damages of Rs. 7,48,750/- plus Rs. 5,04,220/-, the additional damage was caused to the plaintiff. As the insurance company did not pay the amount, the Suit was filed by the plaintiff being Special Civil Suit No. 61/94. The respondent insurance company resisted the suit contending inter alia that it had appointed Mr. V. Trivedi & Co. to assess the loss and damage and as per the report of the said Surveyor and the finding given by him, the fire was not accidental. The defendant-insurance Company contended that as the fire was not accidental and the loss had not occurred due to accidental genuine short circuit fire, the risk was not covered and therefore, the insurance company was not liable to pay the amount. The Civil Court had framed the issue inter alia as to whether the ground of repudiation of the liability by the Insurance Company was genuine or whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of damage from the defendant. The evidence was led by both the parties and ultimately, the Trial Court dismissed the suit by the above referred judgement. It is under these circumstances, the present appeal before this Court. 3. We have considered the evidence, which has been made available by the learned Advocate for the appellant at the time of hearing of the matter. 4. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant first contended that the finding recorded by the lower Court that the fire was artificial and not accidental is not correct and in his submission, the Surveyor of the Insurance Company had only to opine that what quantum of damage is sustained and could not have opined on the ground of genuineness of the fire or otherwise. He submitted that after the fire, reporting was made to the fire brigade of Rajkot Municipal Corporation and as per the report of the Chief Fire Officer of Rajkot Municipal Corporation, the cause of fire was electric short circuit, therefore, he submitted that when there was already a report of the fire brigade officer, the learned judge could not have relied upon the opinion of the surveyor Shri Trivedi on the ground of genuineness of the fire or otherwise. He therefore submitted that the error has been committed by the Trial Court which deserves to be interfered with. 5. The examination of the said contention shows that from the very beginning, in the written statement, the contention was raised by the Insurance Company that it was a man made fire and a calculated move to extract money from the defendant Insurance Company. In furtherance to the said averment in the written statement, the report of Shri vs. Trivedi & Company, independent Surveyor was relied upon. Therefore, from the very beginning, repudiation of the liability was on the ground that it was not genuine accidental fire, but was a man made artificial fire and a calculated move to extract money from the insurance company. Therefore, in such circumstances, the burden was upon the appellant-plaintiff to prove by examination of any expert to show the Court that fire was not an artificial and was genuinely accidental fire. It is an admitted position that on the aspects of genuineness of the fire, or that fire was not artificial one, no evidence of any expert has been produced by the plaintiff. The report of the fire brigade, upon which reliance has been placed refers to the electric short circuit and it does not speak that such electric short circuit was an accidental one or otherwise. The ground for repudiation of the liability of the liability by the insurance company was that the fire was not accidental, but was self created fire or a man made fire. Therefore, it was for the plaintiff to prove by satisfactory evidence that there was sufficient circumstances leading to the conclusion that the fire was accidental fire and not main made or artificial. As against the same, the Insurance Company has led evidence of Shri Trivedi at Exh.116. Therefore, it was for the plaintiff to prove by satisfactory evidence that there was sufficient circumstances leading to the conclusion that the fire was accidental fire and not main made or artificial. As against the same, the Insurance Company has led evidence of Shri Trivedi at Exh.116. In the examination-in-chief, he has stated four reasons for supporting his conclusion as to why the fire was not an accidental one. Such reasons are narrated as ABCD in the examination in chief by way of an affidavit. Nothing contrary has come out in the cross-examination except to the extent that he had no material for such purpose. But the pertinent aspect is that in the grounds stated in his deposition by Shri Trivedi who was considered as an expert by the Insurance Company, first was that there was no raw material in the premises which may lead to accidental fie. Second ground stated was that the firewood was at a different place and the places at which the electric line was passing did not contain any material which can be said inflammable. The third ground stated by him is that the firewood was at distance in the open ground and when it was required, the same was being carried to the boiler. The fourth ground was that in the manufacturing process, there is no use of petrol, diesel, kerosene or gas or any inflammable material which may lead to the accidental fire. The fifth ground was that the electric switch was in the same condition and there was no fire at that place. Therefore, he has opined that the fire was a self created one and it was not accidental. Further circumstance, which has been considered by the learned Judge is that if there was accidental genuine fire due to electric short circuit, first there will be defusing of all the fuse and the wires will also get burnt. No such circumstance had come on record and on the contrary, there was neither any defusing nor any damage to the electric wires. Under these circumstances, when the plaintiff had not led any evidence of any expert and the Insurance Company led evidence to show that the fire was not accidental, the finding record by the learned Judge cannot be said to be erroneous. 6. It was next contended by Mr. Under these circumstances, when the plaintiff had not led any evidence of any expert and the Insurance Company led evidence to show that the fire was not accidental, the finding record by the learned Judge cannot be said to be erroneous. 6. It was next contended by Mr. Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant that the document of correspondence between the Insurance Company and Shri Trivedi, Surveyor, were there on record at Exhibits 121 and 122 and in his submission, as per the said correspondence, the surveyor Shri Trivedi had admitted that he had no material to show that the fire was not accidental, therefore, the learned judge ought not to have given the finding that the fire was not genuine but artificial. 7. As such, the fire was accidental or genuine can be considered on the basis of various circumstantial evidence which existed at the time when the surveyor visited the premises. The learned Judge in the discussion at Paras 21 and 22 elaborately has considered the said aspects. If the circumstances lead to the conclusion that the fire was not accidental, the same cannot be faulted with merely because in the correspondence between the surveyor and the insurance company, it was stated that there was no material. As such, the report of the surveyor has been fully accepted by the insurance company and was pressed in service by the Insurance Company. 8. Be it noted that the plaintiff had filed the Suit and the burden was upon the plaintiff to prove that the fire was accidental, more particularly when the defence was that the fire was not accidental and the liability was repudiated. If the plaintiff has failed to discharge the burden, as against the same, the Insurance Company has proved the said factum, it cannot be said that the error has been committed by the learned Judge in finding that the fire was not accidental and the ground for repudiation of the liability by the Insurance company is not legal. 9. No other contention is raised. 10. In view of the above, the appeal is meritless, therefore dismissed.