WRUTTENSBERGISCHS Vs. COROMANDEL CRUCIBLES INDUSTRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Question involved in this revision is whether the suit should be filed at Kakinada or at Madras or in West Germany.

(2.) The plaintiff M/s. Coromondal Crucibles Industries, Samalkotfiled the suit in the Munsif's Court at Kakinada. The first defendant is an Insurance Company of Germany represented by its claims Survey Agents in India M/s. F. E. Hardcastle & Company, Bombay. The second defendant is M/s. F. E Hardcastle & Company, Bombay. Defendant No. 3 is the owner of the ship which brought the consignment. Defendant No. 4 is the agent of the 3rd defendant having his office at Madras. According to the plaintiff, the consignment fell short by 779 K.Gs. It, therefore, filed the suit against defendants 1 to 4 to make good the loss sustained by them. The defendants raised a plea that the District Munsif's Court, Kakinada has no jurisdiction and the dispute, if any, has to be decided in a court at Germany. According to the defendants, the bill of lading was executed in Germany and, therefore, it is the Court in Germany that has jurisdiction to try the suit. They also contended that as per Article 12 of the Insurance Conditions read with Article 48 of V.V.G. (Stated to be the German Law relating to Insurance matters), the suit will have to be filed in Germany. The trial Court held that as per the Bill of Lading and the Certificate of Marine Insurance, the claims are payable at Madras and therefore the suit will have to be filed in a Court at Madras. It returned the plaint to be presented before proper Court. The plaintiff preferred an appeal. In the appeal he had given up defendants 3 and 4 and confined the claim only to defendants 1 and 2. The lower appellate Court came to the conclusion that since the cause of action arose at Samalkot, the Court at Kakinada has jurisdiction.

(3.) In this revision it is contended by Sri V.L.N.G.K. Murty, learnedcounsel for the petitioner that though the certificate of Marine Insurance provides that the claims arc payable at Madras, the general condition of the policy under Article 48 provides that if the contract has been mediated or concluded by an Insurance Agent, the competent jurisdiction for any and all law suits brought forth against the insurer on grounds of the contracted insurance will be that of the town or place where the Agent was having his business seat at, or his residence, if he does not have a business scat, at the time of the mediation or the conclusion of the contract. According to him, the Agent was not in the picture at the time when the contract was arranged and the consigner i. e. Lonza Company, has its Office, at Germany, and the Insurance Company is also situated in Germany and therefore, only the courts in Germany will have jurisdiction to try the suits arising out of the contract and covered by insurance.