CONTRACTS 2

Transcript

00:00

Kasim Ali Bulbul Vs. The New India Assurance Co.

00:02

FACTS

00:04

TIMELINE

00:06

ARGUMENTS

00:08

JUDGEMENT

00:10

DECREE

00:17

FACTS

00:18

The case at hand takes place on 11th Oct, 1966 in The High Court of Jammu and Kashmir.

00:20

Hon'ble Judges/Coram: Janki Nath Bhat, J. Counsels: For Appellant: J.L. Chowdhury For Respondents/Defendant: S.N. Dar

00:26

Chronology of Events

00:28

1. The plaintiff got the contents in his shop insured with the defendant company for one year for a sum of Rs. 30,000. A policy was issued in his favour by the defendant company. The plaintiff's shop caught fire on the night. 2. Next morning he came on the scene and found that the shop had been taken possession by the local officials of the defendant company and the police. It was sealed. The plaintiff gave tentative information of this fire to the defendant company. 3.The plaintiff's books were seized by the police. The police inquired into the matter and declared the fire accidental Lateron a Surveyor was deputed by the defendant company who made a report.

00:28

4.The shop remained in possession of the defendant company when on another the night a fire broke out which destroyed the remaining articles in the shop. There were some un-insured goods and the total claim of the plaintiff thus comes to Rs. 27,904.81.

00:35

Timeline

00:37

8th June 1960 The plaintiff got the contents of his shop insured with the defendant company for one year.

00:38

4/5th February 1961 The plaintiff's shop caught fire in the night

00:39

3rd Nov 1961 The shop remained in possession of the defendant company when another fire broke out which destroyed the remaining articles.

00:44

ISSUE

00:45

According to the plaintiff, on the basis of the insurance effected on his goods, the defendant company was liable to make good the loss to him, but did not do so.

00:46

As the keys of the shop remained with the defendant up to 3rd Nov 1961, the defendant was further liable for the loss of uninsured goods valuing Rs. 564.50.

00:47

The plaintiff therefore claimed a decree for the mentioned amount,i.e. Rs. 27904.81.

00:51

Arguments

00:52

In defence the defendant company has taken a number of pleas, they are that the defendant has not been properly sued; the plaint is not properly verified and the suit is time-barred.All the benefits under the policy and the suit stand forfeited because:

00:54

The claim is fraudulent A false declaration has been made in support of the claim

00:54

The plaintiff has not complied with the terms and conditions of the policy

00:55

The plaintiff is not entitled to any relief as the suit was not commenced within three months after the rejection of his claim by the defendant company

00:60

JUDGEMENT

00:60

It is a well-established principle that courts will not entertain an action for money had and received where, in order to succeed; the plaintiff has to prove his own fraud. It was held that judged by the standards laid down in section 17 Contract Act, the policy holder was guilty of a fraudulent suppression of material facts when he made his statements. In the circumstances of the case it was held that no advantage could be taken of the Explanation to section 19 of the Contract Act.

01:05

DECREE

01:05

From the finding on the issues recorded above, the plaintiff's suit has to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed, but in view of the hardship caused to the plaintiff and his suit failing on a technical point, the parties are left to bear their own costs.

01:10

THANK YOU Presented By: Lavanya Shankar 20BAL045