1957 (11) TMI 33 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Timeliness of the claim made to the Insurance Company.
2. Occurrence of looting of insured goods during the disturbances preceding the partition.
3. Damages resulting from the looting.
4. Entitlement to the damages.
5. Locus standi of the applicant.
6. Compliance with the terms of the insurance policies.
7. Validity of the insurance policy at the time of the loss.
8. Relief sought.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Timeliness of the Claim:
The Tribunal held that the claim was not made within the stipulated time. However, the High Court disagreed, noting that Section 18(6) of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act, 1951, requires a claim to be made within one year of the loss. The appellant argued that telegrams and letters were sent to the Insurance Company within the required timeframe. The High Court found the letters and telegrams to be genuine and timely, thus deciding the issue in favor of the appellant.

2. Occurrence of Looting:
The Tribunal found that it had not been proven that the insured goods were looted during the insurance policy period. The High Court, however, reviewed testimonies from witnesses who saw the looting on 8th and 9th August 1947, and concluded that the looting did occur within the policy period. The Court emphasized that the statements of the eyewitnesses were unchallenged and credible.

3. Damages Resulting from Looting:
The Tribunal did not address this issue due to its findings on the first two issues. The High Court, however, determined that the loss sustained by Chuni Lal was total and significantly exceeded the insured amount, thus recognizing the extent of the damages.

4. Entitlement to Damages:
The Tribunal held that neither the appellant nor the Bank was entitled to the insured amount. The High Court, however, noted that under Section 18(3) of the Act, the insurance money should first satisfy the debt due from the displaced person, with any balance refunded to the displaced person. The parties agreed to divide the insurance money in a 75:25 ratio between the Bank and the appellant, respectively.

5. Locus Standi of the Applicant:
The Tribunal found in favor of the appellant regarding his locus standi to make the application. The High Court did not find any reason to disagree with this finding.

6. Compliance with Insurance Policies:
The Tribunal found against the Insurance Company on this issue, indicating that the necessary conditions had been satisfied. The High Court did not address this issue further, implying agreement with the Tribunal's finding.

7. Validity of the Insurance Policy at the Time of Loss:
The Tribunal held that policy No. C-15012 was not in force on the date of the looting. The High Court, however, found that both policies were in force during the looting on 8th and 9th August 1947, thus disagreeing with the Tribunal.

8. Relief Sought:
The High Court passed a decree in favor of the appellant for Rs. 24,500 and in favor of the Punjab and Sind Bank for Rs. 73,500 against the Hartford Fire Insurance Company. The appeal was allowed with costs throughout, to be borne by the Insurance Company.

Conclusion:
The High Court reversed the Tribunal's dismissal of the appellant's application, finding that the claim was made within the stipulated time, the looting occurred during the policy period, and the appellant and the Bank were entitled to the insurance money. The appeal was allowed with costs awarded to the appellant.