JUDGMENT Mir Alfaz Ali, J. - This regular first appeal is by the defendant against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Kamrup in Money Suit No. 137/2008. 2. The facts leading to the present appeal was that the respondent, as plaintiff, filed a suit (Money Suit No.137/2008) for recovery of Rs. 36 lakhs as compensation with interest against the appellant/defendant. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant floated a tender inviting global bids for disposal of seven nos. of mobile gas turbine (for short MGT), each having capacity of 2.70 megawatt, installed at Geleki and Kothalguri. The plaintiff participated in the tender process quoting the price at Rs. 1.8 crores inclusive of taxes and eventually the plaintiff was awarded with the work. Later on, the plaintiff requested the defendant No. 2 for splitting up the lifting work in two phases and the plaintiff also offered to make 50 % of the payment for the first phase, which was agreed by the defendant. The plaintiff also offered to furnish bank guarantee for the remaining 50% value of the work. Accordingly, the plaintiff paid Rs.93,60,000/-, Rs. 90 lakhs being 50% of the purchase value and Rs. 3,60,000/- as VAT (@ 4% of the price). Upon such payment, the defendant issued the lifting order on 15-06-2006 in respect of three nos. of MGT sets at Geleki and spare parts stored at Kothalguri and Maibala stores. In the said lifting order, it was stipulated that the plaintiff should lift the goods within next 90 days. While issuing the lifting order, the defendant No. 2 also requested the Deputy Commissioner, Dibrugarh and Sivasagar to provide necessary security at the time of lifting the materials. While the plaintiff visited the Kothalguri and Geleki sites, it was found that the materials were lying without any proper security. The plaintiff brought the matter to the notice of the defendants and requested to make arrangement for security of the goods, which were yet to be lifted. On request of the plaintiff, defendant No. 2 wrote a letter to the defendant No. 4 on 26-07-2006, asking him to arrange for security measures. The plaintiff brought the matter to the notice of the defendants and requested to make arrangement for security of the goods, which were yet to be lifted. On request of the plaintiff, defendant No. 2 wrote a letter to the defendant No. 4 on 26-07-2006, asking him to arrange for security measures. However, on the failure of the defendants to make necessary arrangement for security, incident of theft had taken place, and large numbers of valuable parts from the MGT sets were stolen away, for which, an FIR was also lodged by the defendant on 06-10-2006. When the plaintiff noticed, that a large number of valuable articles were stolen for want of proper security, they requested the defendants to make a joint inspection of the materials for assessment of the value of the goods, which were stolen. On 26-05-2007 a joint inspection was carried out by the representatives of the plaintiff and the defendants. During such inspection, it was revealed, that several valuable articles like copper cables, copper bus-bear etc were stolen and the defendants admitted the value of the stolen goods to be Rs. 16 lakhs. The plaintiff offered to pay Rs. 73 lakhs for the 2nd phase of the work by adjusting Rs. 16 lakhs towards compensation for the loss, due to theft of valuable parts of the MGT sets, as the defendants had already encashed the bank guarantee of Rs. 1 lakhs against earnest money deposit (EMD). However, the defendants insisted for payment of the entire value of 93, 60,000/- and assured the plaintiff, that the amount of compensation should be settled separately. Ultimately the plaintiff made the full payment for the 2nd phase of the work, upon assurance from the defendants, that the issue of compensation would be settled separately. It is further stated in the plaint that during lifting of the 2nd phase of work, the plaintiff noticed, that further incident of theft had taken place and the value of the stolen materials was more than 20 lakhs. Therefore, the plaintiff made a claim of Rs. 36 lakhs from the defendants as compensation for theft of various valuable parts from the MGT sets before they were lifted by the plaintiff. 3. Therefore, the plaintiff made a claim of Rs. 36 lakhs from the defendants as compensation for theft of various valuable parts from the MGT sets before they were lifted by the plaintiff. 3. The defendants in the written statement stated, that the Assam State Electricity Board entered into contract for sale of MGT sets on "as is, where is and no complain basis", and as such, there was no question of compensation, inasmuch as, there was no such contract between the parties for paying compensation. It was stated in the written statement that the plaintiff firm submitted the claim for Rs. 16 lakhs unilaterally without any consultation with the defendants and also challenged the correctness of the assessment of Rs. 16 lakhs. It was also stated in the written statement that the plaintiffs were requested to arrange their own security personnel to prevent any theft or pilferage, but the plaintiff failed to take any steps for providing any security arrangement from their end, though, the defendants engaged their security personnel in the respective sites of the MGT. As regards the claim of Rs. 20 lakhs the defendants stated that no joint inspection was made regarding the allegation of theft and also denied the incident of further theft after 26-05-2007. On the basis of the above pleadings, learned trial court framed the following issues : wxyz 1. Is there any cause of action for the instant suit ? zyxw wxyz 2. Whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation ? zyxw wxyz 3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary praties and misjoinder of parties ? zyxw wxyz 4. Whether the defendant ASEB ageed to sell the materials on "as is where is" and on "no complaint basis ? zyxw wxyz 5. Whether adequate steps had been taken by the parties to protect the materials in question ? zyxw wxyz 6. Whether there was theft/pilferage of any valuable/costly item at the site ? zyxw wxyz 7. Where the plaintiff deposited the cost of the materials in time ? zyxw wxyz 8. Whether the plaintiff firm lifted the materials in time ? zyxw wxyz 9. Whether the joint inspection report has been prepared correctly ? zyxw wxyz 10. Whether the claim of Rs. 16,00,000/- only raised by the plaintiff has any substantive basis ? zyxw wxyz 11. Where the plaintiff deposited the cost of the materials in time ? zyxw wxyz 8. Whether the plaintiff firm lifted the materials in time ? zyxw wxyz 9. Whether the joint inspection report has been prepared correctly ? zyxw wxyz 10. Whether the claim of Rs. 16,00,000/- only raised by the plaintiff has any substantive basis ? zyxw wxyz 11. Whether the defendants had committed any illegality in refusing to issue lifting order until and unless the entire price was paid ? zyxw wxyz 12. Whether the defendants had deviated from the terms of payment as incorporated in the letter dated 5/6/07 ? zyxw wxyz 13. Whether the plaintiff had paid Rs. 16,00,000/- only in time as committed vide letter dated 14/6/07 ? zyxw wxyz 14. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief as claimed for ? zyxw wxyz 15. What other relief/reliefs parties are entitled to get ? zyxw 4. Both the parties adduced evidence and upon hearing the parties, the learned Civil Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 5. Learned senior counsel for the appellants, Mr. BD Das and learned counsel for the respondent Mr. A. Dhar were heard. 6. Learned senior counsel for the appellants, Mr. BD Das submits that there was no such terms and conditions in the NIT for paying any compensation in respect of any loss due to theft or otherwise. Rather, it was categorically mentioned in the executive summary in the NIT, that the defendants intended to sell the MGT materials on "as is, where is" and no complain basis", and therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to any compensation. It is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Das that there was no basis of the claim of Rs. 16 lakhs, as on the basis of the joint inspection the value of the stolen articles was assessed by a committee constituted by the Board. Mr. Das further submits, that after the joint inspection, upon request of the plaintiff, assessment of the loss due to theft was made and thereafter, no incident of theft had taken place and as such the claim of the plaintiff was without any basis and the plaintiff also did not adduce any evidence to substantiate the claim. Mr. Das also submitted that learned Civil Judge decreed the suit with a perverse finding that the claim of the plaintiff was admitted by the defendants. 7. Per contra, Mr. Mr. Das also submitted that learned Civil Judge decreed the suit with a perverse finding that the claim of the plaintiff was admitted by the defendants. 7. Per contra, Mr. A. Dhar, learned counsel for the respondent submitted, that, though, there was no terms and conditions in the contract, the plaintiff could not lift the articles even after payment of the money without a lifting order to be issued by the defendants. Mr. Dhar further contended, that since the articles were in the custody of the defendants, the defendants were under obligation to take care for protection of the articles, till they were handed over and/or delivered to the plaintiff by issuing necessary lifting order. Learned counsel further submitted, that the defendants admitted the incident of theft, and in fact, the FIR was lodged by the employees of the defendants and having accepted the incident of theft, defendant also conducted the joint inspection with the plaintiff, in order to ascertain the extent of loss. It was also submitted by Mr. Dhar, that the defendant, in fact, agreed to settle the issue of payment of compensation separately, and asked the plaintiff not to mix the issue of compensation with the price of the goods or the principal contract. The defendants having admitted the loss due to theft and having agreed to settle the compensation separately, cannot turn around and say that they are not liable to pay the compensation, submits Mr. Dhar. 8. What has surfaced from the rival contention raised by the learned counsel for both the sides is that as regards the principal contract of purchasing the seven nos. of MGT and the price thereof, there was no dispute and the crux of dispute revolves around the payment of compensation on account of alleged loss to the plaintiff, due to theft allegedly taken place before the goods were lifted by the plaintiff. Therefore, the only point that needs to be answered in this appeal can be summarized as under :- wxyz 1. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to compensation of Rs. 36 lakhs as claimed in the plaint, due to theft of spare parts and other materials of the MGT ? zyxw wxyz Point No. 1. zyxw 9. Learned Civil Judge held that the defendant admitted the theft of the articles worth of Rs. 16 lakhs and the claim of additional Rs. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to compensation of Rs. 36 lakhs as claimed in the plaint, due to theft of spare parts and other materials of the MGT ? zyxw wxyz Point No. 1. zyxw 9. Learned Civil Judge held that the defendant admitted the theft of the articles worth of Rs. 16 lakhs and the claim of additional Rs. 20 lakhs for further theft was also not denied specifically, which amounted to admission and therefore, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The PW-1, Managing Director of the plaintiff firm stated in his evidence, that after receipt of the lifting order in respect of the 1st phase, when he visited the Kothalguri and Geleki sites, he noticed that there was no adequate security arrangement and the materials were exposed to serious risk of theft and immediately brought the same to the notice of defendant No. 2 and requested him to make necessary security arrangement vide letter dated 24-07-2006. Upon receipt of the said letter, the defendant No. 2 wrote a letter to the defendant No. 4 asking to deploy security personnel at the sites to avoid any dispute. He further stated that despite request of the plaintiff and the letter written by the defendant no. 2, the defendants did not take proper steps for ensuring safety and security of the MGT sets and the spare parts remaining in the custody of the defendants. He further deposed, that due to the negligence on the part of the defendants, the incident of theft had taken place. PW-1 further stated, that the FIRs were lodged on 06-10-2006 and 30.11.2006 regarding the theft and proved as Ext.- 13 & 14. The PW-1 also stated, that having learnt about the incident of repeated theft, he requested the defendants to make a joint inspection in order to ascertain the extent of loss, due to theft and the defendants in their letter dated 06-12-2006 (Ext.-16) agreed to arrange a joint inspection and ultimately the defendants by letter dated 21-05-2007 (Ext.-18) fixed the date for joint inspection on 26-05-2007 and also constituted the inspection team comprising of the representatives of both the plaintiff and the defendants. PW-1 further stated that he himself was a member of the joint inspection team. PW-1 further stated that he himself was a member of the joint inspection team. He stated that during joint inspection, it was found that almost all the copper cables and parts of control units, copper bus-bear and electrical parts were missing from the MGT sets due to theft. He further stated that other materials such as, turbo generator, compressor motor, gear motor, gear box etc were also found damaged. Accordingly, a joint inspection report (Ext.-M) was prepared on 26- 05-2007. It was also stated by the plaintiff, that the loss of materials, due to theft was assessed at Rs. 16 lakhs and was intimated to the defendants and the same was admitted by the officials of the defendants. PW-1 further stated that the loss of Rs. 16 lakhs due to theft was not denied by the defendant, inasmuch as, in reply to the claim of the plaintiff, the defendants assured that the claim of Rs. 16 lakhs would be settled separately. It was also stated by PW-1, that though, initially the defendants agreed to adjust the claim of Rs. 16 lakhs against the payment in respect of 2nd phase of lifting, later on they refused to adjust and pressurized the plaintiff to make the entire payment for the second phase of the work, however, assuring that the claim of compensation would be settled separately. PW-1 also stated, that later on, the plaintiff came to know that further incident of theft had taken place in Kothalguri site after the joint inspection on 26-05-2007, because of which, valuable articles of worth more than Rs.20 lakhs were stolen. However, the said fact of further theft was suppressed by the defendants, though, the articles were in custody of the defendants, as till then, no lifting order was issued. The DW-1 also admitted during cross-examination that there was theft of parts of MGT sets while those MGT sets were in the custody of the defendants. He also admitted that having come to know about the theft, FIR was lodged. DW-1 also admitted the factum of joint inspection carried out by the representatives of the plaintiff and the defendants. Defendants also proved the Ext.-M, joint inspection report dated 26-05-2007 and the Ext.-P, the assessment report. The Ext.-P, the assessment report shows, that the value of the theft articles was assessed at Rs. 8,31,225/-. DW-1 also admitted the factum of joint inspection carried out by the representatives of the plaintiff and the defendants. Defendants also proved the Ext.-M, joint inspection report dated 26-05-2007 and the Ext.-P, the assessment report. The Ext.-P, the assessment report shows, that the value of the theft articles was assessed at Rs. 8,31,225/-. The DW-1, however, admitted that the plaintiff was not informed about the constitution of such committee for assessment of the loss. DW-1 also admitted that the primary responsibility of handing over the tendered articles on "as is, where is and no complain basis" as on the date of tender was with the defendants. DW-1 further admitted that the matter relating to compensation could not be settled and the amount of Rs.8,31,335/- as assessed by the committee constituted by the board could not be paid to the plaintiff for some other pre-occupation of the Board (defendants). 10. What is therefore clear from the evidence of PW-1 and DW-1 is that although the contract was on "as is; where is and no complain basis", admittedly such terms related to the time of tendering and not to the time of actual delivery or lifting. It was also admitted position, that even after payment of the purchased value, the plaintiff could not lift or take away the goods without a lifting order from the defendants. It is also admitted by the DW-1, that incident of theft had taken place while the articles were in the custody of the defendants. The evidence of DW-1 further made it clear that notwithstanding anything in the original tender of the contract, defendants admitted that some incident of theft had taken place and the amount of loss due to theft had also been assessed at Rs.8,31,225/- and the defendants were rather willing to pay the amount assessed, but the payment could not be made for some pre-occupation. 11. Ext.-17, the letter written by the plaintiff shows that the plaintiff made the claim of Rs. 16 lakhs on a lump sum basis, i.e., Rs. 4 lakhs against each MGT set. Ext.-19, the letter issued by the defendants shows, that the defendants asked the plaintiff to make full payment for the second phase, so as to enable the defendants to issue lifting order for the four nos. of MGT set. Plaintiff was also informed, that the compensation asked for by the plaintiff would be settled separately. Vide Ext. Ext.-19, the letter issued by the defendants shows, that the defendants asked the plaintiff to make full payment for the second phase, so as to enable the defendants to issue lifting order for the four nos. of MGT set. Plaintiff was also informed, that the compensation asked for by the plaintiff would be settled separately. Vide Ext. 25 issued by the defendants also it was agreed that the amount of compensation for alleged theft of materials would be settled separately. Ext.-27 another letter issued by the defendants addressed to the plaintiff, wherein it was specifically stated that "You are, further assured that the compensation for alleged theft materials will be settled separately with you. So we are working on that and a decision will be intimated to you in due course of time. Therefore, the payment of balance amount and compensation shall not be mixed up". The plaintiff vide Ext.-33 made a claim of Rs. 36 lakhs against loss of stolen articles, of which Rs.16 lakhs pertains to the period before lifting the first phase of goods and Rs. 20 lakhs thereafter. The defendant has proved Ext. B and a letter dated 31-07-2006 written by the General Manager of the defendants, addressed to the plaintiff, wherein the plaintiffs were also requested to place their own security personal at Kothalguri and Geleki. Vide Ext.-C, the defendants informed the plaintiff that adequate number of security personnel had been arranged from their end and requested the plaintiff to deploy their security personnel for protection of the goods. 12. Ext.-13 proved by the plaintiff shows that the defendant instructed their officials to arrange proper security at the sites, so as to avoid any kind of theft, pilferage, damage etc till the materials are lifted. Ext.-M is the joint inspection report, which shows that during the inspection, it was found that almost all the copper cables of control units, copper brass bars and some electrical parts of central units were stolen. Some copper cables and parts of control units were also found in the store and in the control room, which have been reported to be recovered from the thieves. Ext.''N'' annexed to the Ext.-''M'' appears to be the statement of the security personnel regarding theft. Ext.-''O'' is the office order constituting the committee for assessment. Some copper cables and parts of control units were also found in the store and in the control room, which have been reported to be recovered from the thieves. Ext.''N'' annexed to the Ext.-''M'' appears to be the statement of the security personnel regarding theft. Ext.-''O'' is the office order constituting the committee for assessment. Defendants also proved Ext-''P'', the report of the assessment committee, which shows the value of the goods stolen was assessed at Rs. 8,31,225/-. Thus, the evidence of PW-1 and 2 and also the documentary evidence, as indicated above, makes it abundantly clear that there is no dispute, between the parties with regard to contract of sale of the seven nos. of MGT on "as is, where is and no complain basis." It is also admitted position, as evident from the oral testimony of DW-1, that the condition of "as is, where is and no complain basis" related to the date of tender and not the date of lifting. It is also admitted by DW-1, that the occurrence of theft had taken place, while the goods were there in the custody of the defendants. It was also evident that there were some delay in carrying out the second phase of contract and making payment and therefore, evidently there was no dispute with regard to cost and performance of contract. The DW-1 further admitted that defendant was willing to pay Rs.8,31,225/- assessed as loss due to theft. Though, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants/defendants had no responsibility to pay compensation as per the terms and conditions of the tender, such argument does not seems to be appealing. Because the evidence brought on record, both oral and documentary, makes it abundantly clear that some incident of theft had taken place before the articles were lifted by the plaintiff in the first phase, and admittedly both the parties made a joint inspection to confirm the factum of theft. Ex.-''P'' shows that the value of the stolen articles has been assessed by the committee constituted by the defendant board and the loss was calculated as Rs. 8,31,225/-. Although the plaintiff stated that the defendants admitted the claim of Rs. 16 lakhs or agreed to pay the same, I find no evidence on record to substantiate such claim. Ex.-''P'' shows that the value of the stolen articles has been assessed by the committee constituted by the defendant board and the loss was calculated as Rs. 8,31,225/-. Although the plaintiff stated that the defendants admitted the claim of Rs. 16 lakhs or agreed to pay the same, I find no evidence on record to substantiate such claim. Be that as it may, one thing is abundantly clear, that even if there was no such terms in the original contract regarding payment of any compensation, it was subsequently agreed by and between the parties by their conduct, that any loss due to theft for the fault of the defendant, which occurred in between the time of contract and delivery for lifting of the goods, shall be compensated. 13. From the documents exhibited, it appears that the claim of Rs. 16 lakhs made by the plaintiff was sought to be settled separately and it was also stated that the claim of compensation should not be mixed up with the payment of the contract amount or the value of goods. Evidently there was no admission regarding the amount of Rs. 16 lakhs by the defendants, though, evidently defendants agreed to settle the claim. Agreeing to settle the matter does not amount to admission of the quantum of claim, which needs to be proved on the basis of actual loss by pleadings and proof. It is no doubt true, that the assessment was made unilaterally by the defendants through the assessment committee, as reflected in Ext.-''P'' and no one from the plaintiffs'' side was the member of the said assessment committee. However, I do not find any evidence on record to substantiate the claim of the plaintiff with regard to Rs. 16 lakhs against the materials alleged to have been stolen. The claim of Rs. 16 lakhs as made by the plaintiff admittedly as revealed from the Ext.-''17'' was on lump sum basis @ Rs. 4 lakhs against each machine without any specification. Although the plaintiff has challenged the assessment vide Ext.-''P'', the plaintiff has not adduced any evidence with regard to their claim of Rs. 16 lakhs. Although the factum of theft was admitted, there is no evidence or factual basis for the calculation of Rs. 16 lakhs by the plaintiff and the Ext.-''17'' makes it abundantly clear that such claim of the plaintiff was based only on the assumption and presumption. 16 lakhs. Although the factum of theft was admitted, there is no evidence or factual basis for the calculation of Rs. 16 lakhs by the plaintiff and the Ext.-''17'' makes it abundantly clear that such claim of the plaintiff was based only on the assumption and presumption. On the other hand, the defendants had assessed the value, article-wise by an expert committee on the basis of joint inspection report. Therefore, in my considered view, there is no reason for discarding the Ext.''P'', the assessment made by the committee to fix the value of articles stolen, in absence of any other better evidence from the side of the plaintiff to substantiate the claim of Rs. 16 lakhs. In the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view, that the findings of the learned Civil Judge that the defendants admitted the claim of Rs. 16 lakhs appears to be perverse and not based on evidence on record. However, the defendants admitted the quantum of loss, due to theft as Rs, 8,31,225/- and therefore, the defendants cannot escape the liability of the payment of the said amount. 14. So far the claim of Rs. 20 lakhs is concerned, except making an averment or a claim in the plaint, the plaintiff has not adduced any evidence to substantiate the said claim attributed to theft, alleged to have taken place after the joint inspection dated 26.05.2007. As regards the claim of Rs. 20 lakhs, on account of loss, for alleged theft after the first phase of lifting of goods, the learned Civl Judge, held, that the defendants did not deny such claim in the written statement, which amounted to admission, and as such, the plaintiff was entitled to a decree on the admission by default. 15. Learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Gian Chand and brother and Another v. Rattan Lal alias Rattan Singh, (2013) 2 SCC 606 and Jaspal Kaur Ceema and Anr. Vs. Industrial Trade Links and Ors., (2017) 8 SCC 592 , submits, that in view of Order VIII Rule 3, 4 & 5 CPC, the defendants need to deny each and every allegation specifically and evasive denial amounted to admission. The learned counsel contended that the claim of the plaintiff, regarding further theft after the joint inspection and loss due to such theft being Rs. The learned counsel contended that the claim of the plaintiff, regarding further theft after the joint inspection and loss due to such theft being Rs. 20 lakhs, has not been denied by the plaintiff in the written statement, which amounted to admission and the said submission of the defendants was accepted by the learned Civil Judge and decreed the suit, and as such, the decree cannot be faulted. Refuting the above contention, Mr. BD Das, learned senior counsel, relying on a decision of this Court in Uttam Ch. Kothari Vs. Gauri Sankar and Anr, (2007) 1 GauLT 37 submits, that in order to determine as to whether there is an admission in the written statement, the averment in the written statement is required to be read as a whole and not in a piecemeal. This court observed, that in order to determine, if any admission has been made in the written statement, the written statement has to be read as a whole. The plaintiff in para 37 of the plaint averred that the plaintiff while executing the lifting order on 11-09-2007 for the 2nd phase, noticed that the defendant authorities failed to hand over many parts of the MGT, which were missing because of theft, which took place after the joint inspection held on 26-05-2007. It was also averred, that the value of the said parts which could not be delivered to the plaintiff, due to theft amounted to Rs. 20 lakhs, which was stolen away from the site, where the MGT sets were kept. The defendants in the written statement clearly stated that after the joint inspection on 26-05-2007, there was no incident of theft. It was also stated that the allegation of theft and such heavy parts was rather absurd. It was also stated by the defendants in para 32 and 35 of the written statement, that allegation of theft after joint inspection dt. 26-05-2007 was false and fake and the plaintiff never made such claim at the time of lifting the MGT sets in the second phase, that various parts of the MGT sets were stolen after the joint inspection, and such objection/claim was raised after about one and half month of lifting the MGT sets, pursuant to the second lifting order dated 11-09- 2007. Thus, having regard to the averment made in the written statement taking as a whole, it cannot be said that such averment with regard to the allegation of theft after the joint inspection and consequent loss of Rs. 20 lakhs was not denied. 16. What is interesting to note is that though, the plaintiff averred in the plaint that the defendants could not hand over many parts at the time of lifting of the MGT sets pursuant to the lifting order dt. 11-09-2007, as those parts were stolen, but there is no material on record to show, that while lifting the MGT sets, the plaintiff raised any objection to that effect. The defendant in the written statement clearly pleaded, that after the lifting order issued on 11-09-2007 plaintiff completed the lifting within 24-09-2007 and thereafter the plaintiff remained silent for about one and half month and allegation of theft and claim for compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs was raised for the first time on 10/11/2007, and as such, defendant simply ignored it. The plaintiff pleaded in para 39 of the plaint that it would not be possible to hold a joint inspection so as to ascertain the exact quantity and value of the lost items as the MGT sets were already lifted/removed. If that be so, what prevented the plaintiff to raise the objection if any, regarding further theft of any parts from the MGT sets after joint inspection, at least at the time of lifting the MGT sets in the second phase. The conduct of the plaintiff in remaining silent and writing a letter to the defendants on 10-11-2007 raising allegation of theft and consequent loss of Rs. 20 lakhs after about one and half month, when admittedly there was no scope for ascertaining the veracity of the allegation of theft and loss consequent thereof, obviously raises a serious question on the bona fide of the claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff evidently did not raise any objection while lifting the articles as regards non-delivery of parts of MGT sets, nor there is any pleading or evidence specifying as to what were the parts not delivered or what were the articles stolen after the joint inspection. The plaintiff evidently did not raise any objection while lifting the articles as regards non-delivery of parts of MGT sets, nor there is any pleading or evidence specifying as to what were the parts not delivered or what were the articles stolen after the joint inspection. Therefore, mere making a vague and omnibus averment, that some parts were not delivered, that too, without raising any objection when the delivery had taken place or the articles were lifted, is not sufficient to maintain a claim of compensation on the ground of fault. 17. What therefore, transpires from the entire pleadings and evidence is that the claim of Rs. 20 lakhs for alleged theft after the joint inspection, does not appear to be based on any specific pleading or evidence on record. Although admittedly there were some theft and the defendant also admitted the incident of theft before the joint inspection, which has been assessed, I find no material on record to substantiate the claim of additional Rs. 20 lakhs claimed by the plaintiff, and as such, the claim of additional Rs. 20 lakhs remains in the arena of assumption and presumption without appropriate pleadings and evidence to substantiate such claim. In fact, the claim of Rs. 20 lakhs itself appears to be vague in absence of any pleading as to what were the articles stolen after the joint inspection and the actual value thereof. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am unable to pursuade myself to concur with the findings of the learned Civil Judge that the claim of Rs. 20 lakhs was admitted by the defendant because of non-denial or evasive denial in the written statement. 18. When plaintiff files the suit for compensation on account of injury or loss suffered due to fault or negligence of the defendant, the plaintiff is under obligation to prove three essential facts. Firstly the plaintiff has suffered loss or injury, secondly the loss or injury to the plaintiff was caused due to fault or negligence of the defendant and thirdly the quantum of actual loss, sufferred. Unless these basic requirements are proved, plaintiff cannot be entitled to any compensation on mere asking. Thus, the evidence and materials on record clearly demonstrates, that the claim of the plaintiff for the compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs because of alleged theft after the joint inspection is based on no evidence. 19. Unless these basic requirements are proved, plaintiff cannot be entitled to any compensation on mere asking. Thus, the evidence and materials on record clearly demonstrates, that the claim of the plaintiff for the compensation of Rs. 20 lakhs because of alleged theft after the joint inspection is based on no evidence. 19. In the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that the plaintiff certainly entitled to Rs. 8,31,225/- as assessed by the assessment committee on account of loss due to theft which was admittedly ascertained by joint inspection dtd. 26-05-2007. Therefore, the issue is partly decided in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. 20. In view of the above discussion, the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge stands modified and it is held that the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree of Rs.8,31,225/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realisation with the cost of the litigation. 21. Decree be prepared accordingly. 22. Send down the record.