9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Was the factory of the plaintiff along with the goods and machinery therein insured with the defendant company on June 2, 1982? 2. Did a fire take place in the factory premises of the plaintiff on June 2, 1982? If so, what damage was suffered by the plaintiff in the fire and of what value? 3. In case issue No. 1 is proved, is the defendant company not liable to pay for the loss suffered by the plaintiff in that fire subject to the conditions of the insurance? 4. Has the suit been instituted on behalf of the plaintiff company by an authorised person and the plaint signed and verified by a competent person? 5. Relief. Summary: Issue No. 4: The court examined whether Shri G. Jhajharia was authorized to institute the suit and sign the plaint on behalf of the plaintiff company. The court concluded that there was no evidence of a resolution by the board of directors authorizing Shri G. Jhajharia to institute the suit. The court emphasized that under Order 29, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a director or principal officer can sign and verify pleadings but cannot institute a suit without specific authorization. The court cited various precedents and concluded that the plaintiff failed to prove that Shri G. Jhajharia had the authority to institute the suit. Therefore, Issue No. 4 was decided against the plaintiff. Issue No. 2: The court found that a fire did occur at the plaintiff's factory on June 2, 1982, and caused damage. The defendant did not dispute the occurrence of the fire and had appointed a surveyor to assess the damage, which was calculated at Rs. 2,72,458.71. The plaintiff's own surveyor assessed additional damage at Rs. 3,55,174.05. Therefore, the total damage was taken as per the two surveyors' reports. Issues Nos. 1 and 3: The court examined whether there was a valid insurance contract between the plaintiff and the defendant on June 2, 1982. The plaintiff claimed that cover-notes were issued by Shri Dilip Bhattacharjee, the Development Officer of the defendant, on June 1, 1982, but the defendant denied this claim. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the receipt of the cover-notes and did not examine Shri Dilip Bhattacharjee, who could have corroborated their claim. The court concluded that there was no binding contract of insurance between the parties as the cover-notes were not proved to have been given to the plaintiff. Therefore, Issues Nos. 1 and 3 were decided against the plaintiff. Relief: Since the plaintiff failed to prove a valid insurance contract, the defendant company was not liable to pay for the loss suffered by the plaintiff due to the fire. The suit was dismissed with costs.
|
