NITYANANDA DUTTA Vs. CALEDONIAN INSURANCE CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff has instituted this suiit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 20,000/-under his Fire Insurance Policy against the defendant company for the loss of goods he suffered due to fire in his shop at 107, Old China Bazar Street, Calcutta-1 on 19th September, 1954. The plaintiff has also claimed interest on the sum representing the loss and costs.

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaint, the plaintiff was carrying on business in stationery goods in his said. shop and by a policy dated 20th of May, 1953 got his goods in the shop insured by the defendant company against loss or damage by fire. The total sum insured was for Rs. 20,000/-, Rs. 19,000-/ being the insured amount for stationery goods and Rs. 1,000/- for furniture, fittings, etc. The said policy was duly renewed up to 29th of June, 1955 and the loss by fire took place during the period covered by the said policy. According to the plaint, he suffered loss of goods the value of which would be not less than rs. 20,000/ -. His grievance is that Mr. Chopra, a Surveyor, appointed by the defendant company did not take into account many valuable items of the goods in the shop of the plaintiff. The plaintiff categorically states that he is not conversant at all with English and the assessment of damage made by the said surveyor was neither explained nor interpreted to him. The plaintiff allegs that under a fraudulent misrepresentation the said Surveyor got his signatures in some blank forms or papers.

(3.) THE defendant, in his written statement, has stated that the plaintiff is not entitled to any sum exceeding rs. 3,527-2-0 inasmuch as the total value of the plaintiff's goods destroyed in the said shop and that of the furniture and fittings would amount to Rs. 5027-2-0 and Rs. 250/- respectively aggregating to Rs. 5,277-2-0. According to the written statement, the value of the goods and that of the furniture and fittings etc. salvaged would amount to rs. 1,600/- and Rs. 150/- respectively aggregating to Rs. 1,750/ -. Deducting the said sum of Rs. 1,750/- from the total value amounting to Rs. 5,277-2-0, according to the defendant, a sum of rs. 3,527-2-0 is payable to the plaintiff under the said policy. It is also stated that the plaintiff himself duly submitted a claim for loss on or about 27th September, 1954 where the total sum he claimed was Rs. 5,600/ -. In view of the fact that the assessment was done by M. C. Chopra is presence of the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not entitled to get any sum beyond Rs. 3,527-2-0. The defendant has made out a definite case in paragraph 5 of the written statement that on 27th September, 1954 it was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant represented by the said M. C. Chopra that in consideration of the defendant accepting the liability for a sum of Rs. 3,527-2-0 the plaintiff would accept the said sum in full settlement and discharge of his said claim under the said policy. It is however added in the said paragraph that the terms of such agreement are contained in or evidenced by a letter dated 27th September, 1954 duly signed by the plaintiff which letter however inadvertently mentions the sum of Rs. 3,500/- instead of Rs. 3,527-2-0. The only other substantial defence that has been raised is that the suit is not maintainable as the plaintiff did not comply with the terms and conditions laid down in clause 18, i. e. the Arbitration Clause, provided in the said Policy, before institution of this suit.