Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

According to the terms of agreement between the appellant-firm and the Bank all securities, which bad been and were to be delivered to the Bank, had to be insured by the appellant as the borrower and in case oi failure to do so the Bank was at liberty to effect such insurances at the er-pense of the borrower. This agreement referred to insurance against fire risk. It was also agreed that all sums received under any such insurances would be applied towards liquidation o£ the balance due to the Bank for the time being.

The intention of this enactment appears to be that the claims of displaced persons who, on account of the setting up of the dominions of India and Pakistan, had to leave the area now forming part of West Pakistan on account of civil disturbances, should not be thrown out on technical objections which might be raised by the insurance companies to avoid their liability.

6. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant that Chuni Lal proprietor of the appellant-firm, had left Sialkot on 6th of August, 1947, for his native village Fatehgarh. There, on account of the outbreak of communal riots the village was surrounded by the Muslims and he hid himself for four days. He managed to enter the refugee camp on llth of August, 1947, where he met S. Sujan Singh Manager of the Sialkot Branch of the Bank, who told him that his goods had been looted and that telegrams informing the Insurance Company were being sent. Exhibit R-2/3 is a copy of the letter dated llth of August, 1947, sent by the Manager on behalf of the Bank, to the Secretary, the Hartford Fire Insurance Company Limited, Lahore, confirming his telegram of that date reading as under :

Both Mr. K.S. Thapar counsel for the appellant and Mr. K.L. Kapur counsel for the Punjab & Sind Bank, Limited, have stated before me today that the parties have settled the dispute and in case the appeal is to be allowed the insurance money may be divided between the Bank and the appellant in the ratio of 75 per cent, and 25 per cent, respectively and decrees passed accordingly in favour of the appellant for Rs. 24,500/- and in favour of the Punjab and Sind Bank, Limited for Rs. 73,500/- against the Hartford Fire Insurance Co., Limited.

22. In the result, I pass a decree in favour of the appellant, Messrs. Chuni Lal Dwarka Nath, for Rs. 24,500/- against the Hartford Fire Insurance Company, and I also pass a decree for Rs. 73,500/- in favour of the Punjab" and Sind Bank, Limited, Dehradun, against the Hartford Fire Insurance Company.

23. For the reasons stated above, this appeal is allowed with costs throughout. The costs of the appellant shall be borne by respondent No. 1.