9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Interpretation of "liquidated demand" in a summary suit under Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure based on a marine insurance claim for damages to cargo of dry dates. Examination of the surveyor's report as evidence of a "liquidated demand" and the binding nature of the report on the insurance company. Analysis: The petitioner filed a suit under Order xxxvII of the Code of Civil Procedure, claiming damages suffered to cargo of dry dates insured by them, based on a marine insurance claim against the respondent company. The petitioner argued that the claim was a "liquidated demand" and sought to benefit from recent amendments to the Code of Civil Procedure regarding summary suits. The concept of "liquidated demand" was discussed, citing Rifkin v. Safenovitz, which defined it as an amount susceptible of being made certain by mathematical calculations. The respondent in this case was the Oriental Insurance Company, which issued the Marine Insurance Policy covering the cargo of dry dates carried by a specific vessel. The damage to the cargo was allegedly caused by the vessel getting stranded due to cyclonic storms, diverting from its route and unloading the cargo at a different port. A surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company provided a report quantifying the damage in percentage terms, which the petitioner claimed could be converted into a specific amount through arithmetic calculations. The insurance company's counsel highlighted the provisions of the Insurance Act regarding licensing of surveyors and loss assessors, emphasizing the independence of surveyors from the insurer. The insurance policy contained clauses relevant to stranded vessels and claims arising from such situations. The policy specified conditions under which the insurer would be liable for losses, including those related to stranding, sinking, or burning of the vessel. The court referred to the Marine Insurance Act and Rules for Construction of Policy, particularly item 14, which addressed liability in cases of stranding. The surveyor's report attributed the damage to cyclonic storms and the subsequent unloading of the cargo at a different port, aligning with the provisions of the insurance policy and relevant legal frameworks. The court concluded that the surveyor's report, the provisions of the insurance policy, and the applicable legal provisions supported the petitioner's claim of a "liquidated demand." The rejection of the surveyor's report by the insurance company was deemed to be based on a misunderstanding of the policy clauses and legal principles. The court set aside the impugned order, allowing the revision petitions and remitting the matter back to the Commercial Sub Judge for further proceedings. The parties were instructed to appear before the Commercial Sub Judge for the next steps in the case, with no order as to costs. In summary, the judgment focused on interpreting the concept of "liquidated demand" in the context of a marine insurance claim for damages to cargo, emphasizing the role of the surveyor's report as evidence of quantifiable losses. The court's decision highlighted the importance of aligning the surveyor's assessment with the insurance policy provisions and relevant legal standards to determine a specific amount for the claim.
|
