Case Summary : Mohit Kumar Saha versus New India Assurance Co.

CITATION- 1997 ACJ 1170, AIR 1997 CAL 179

BENCH- S.K Sinha

FACTS OF THE CASE

The case has been filed on 6 September, 1996. In this case, the petitioner had took out an insurance policy for truck which costs Rs. 2 lacs from the reputed company that is Respondent. Petitioner took policy from date 25^th September, 1987 to 24^th September, 1998.

But eventually, truck was stolen with load of fish-feed by the driver of said truck, and it was stated that the truck was stolen with the help of Khalasi by assaulting the father of the petitioner who was in the same truck which was taken under the policy of the company. The father of petitioner was sustained on 19^th October, 1987 stabbing injuries.

The report was filed Kotwali Police Station under the Sections- 326, 307, 379, 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Even the petitioner had informed to the Assistant Branch Manager of the company at Kharagpur about the theft which took place.

The petitioner has also lodged his claim with the respondent company for loss of his aforesaid truck under the insurance policy of which the petitioner took loan of 1,49,000/-. However, the police under which the report was filed charge-sheet against Joy Prakash Chand.

ISSUES OF THE CASE

1-The question relates to the rate at which interest is payable by the respondent company?

2- What amount the respondent company is liable to pay to petitioner under the insurance policy?

JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE

There was main issue in this case was of amount that how much be recoverd when loss took place. It was held by Supreme Court that the court may exercise under Article- 226 writ jurisdiction of the Constitution of India regarding to the special circumstances. Basically, these are relevant ordinarily when the writ petition comes to be admitted.

In the matter of record regarding affidavit- in opposition filed by the respondent of company and by the officers , in this it was specifically denied about the bank letter of subrogation which was required to be filled by the petitioner or even regarding information about amount assessed by the licensed surveyor was given.

At last, the Section-46 of the Insurance Act,1938 also does not play any role in this case neither provides right to the petitioner as a policy holder to invoke the writ-jurisdiction of the court.

ANALYSIS

As accordingly, in this case the interest rate charged must 18% per annum which was claimed by the petitioner and which is justified according to me with regard to even the present conditions. In my view, there has been violative of Article-14 of the Constitution of India as the conduct of the respondent company has not been transparent and even it was arbitrary as well as irrational.