1909 (1) TMI 1 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Compliance with Policy Conditions and Warranties
2. Allegation of Fraud by the Plaintiff
3. Cause of Fire and Liability
4. Timeliness of the Suit under the Policy's Limitation Clause

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Compliance with Policy Conditions and Warranties:

The policy dated 11th October 1906 assured the cargo of 977 drums of jute valued at Rs. 11,630 from Ghiur to Calcutta against risks including fire. The warranties included specific conditions such as no smoking or cooking on the boat, reporting to the nearest police station within 24 hours, and commencing any suit within six months of the loss. The defendants denied compliance with these conditions. The court noted that these conditions must be fulfilled with "scrupulous exactness" unless waived. The plaintiff failed to prove compliance with these warranties, particularly regarding the prohibition of smoking or cooking on the boat and timely reporting to the police station.

2. Allegation of Fraud by the Plaintiff:

The defendants alleged that the plaintiff, with intent to defraud, purchased an old and rotten boat for Rs. 60, loaded it with earth and damaged jute, and set it on fire. The trial judge, who had the advantage of seeing and hearing the witnesses, accepted the plaintiff's evidence and disbelieved the defendants' witnesses. The appellate court, despite finding elements of considerable suspicion, did not find sufficient ground to differ from the trial judge's findings on the facts of the case.

3. Cause of Fire and Liability:

The defendants argued that the fire was caused by cooking or smoking, which was an excepted risk under the policy. The court noted that the onus of proving that the fire was caused by cooking or smoking lies on the insurers. However, the plaintiff must prove compliance with the warranty that no smoking or cooking was carried on in the boat. The report made by the Manji at the police station stated that the fire of the earthen pot caught the jute, indicating a breach of the warranty. The plaintiff failed to prove compliance with this condition.

4. Timeliness of the Suit under the Policy's Limitation Clause:

The policy required any suit to be commenced within six months of the loss. The fire occurred on the night of 14th October or early morning of 15th October 1906, but the suit was not instituted until 15th April 1907. The court discussed whether "month" meant a lunar month or a calendar month. It concluded that in contracts, "month" prima facie means a lunar month. Even if it meant a calendar month, the suit was filed one day late, making it barred by the policy's limitation clause. The court held that the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable as it was filed beyond the stipulated time.

Conclusion:

The appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, holding that the plaintiff failed to comply with the essential conditions of the policy and filed the suit beyond the contractual limitation period. The appeal was allowed with costs awarded to the defendants.