THE ORIENTAL FIRE & GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICER, GAUHATI Vs. M/S DOTCO, BADARPUR, CACHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Thousands insure their properties against damages/destruction and/or loss thereof due to accidental fire, riot, theft and/or by other unforseen incidents and continue to pay premium to the insurer years after years with the full sense of security that in the event of such unforseen, unfortunate happening, the insurer would come to rescue by making prompt payment of the insured money. The subscribers never desire such incident to happen in respect of his insured property yet in case of one amongst thousand, such incident may happen. It is normally expected that insurer who continues to receive premium would come forward and make the prompt payment of insured money to the unfortunate few subscribers out of thousands without reservation. It will indeed be very frustrating and shocking, if the insured finds that his claim for payment of insured money is to pass through acid test and that insurers on various pleas or by resorting procedural/legal juggle turns its back and ultimately subject the insured to protracted litigation for realisation of the insured money. How many amongst such unfortunate insured, can afford to approach the Court of law for realisation of the insured money. Such contingency is never expected and should be discouraged. As a matter of course, in case of total destruction or loss of the insured property, the insurer must make prompt payment of the insured money unless the incident is fraudulent in the sense the same is self-engineered by the insured for the purpose of making illegal gain. However, in that contingency the onus would on the insurer to establish that the insured property was destroyed/lost due to fraud and destruction or loss was self-engineered. In case the insurer disputes the claim of total destruction of the insured property and refuses to pay the entire insured money, the part of the insured money to the extent of the value of the quantum of undisputed destroyed property should be paid immediately and for non-payment of the balance it is for the insurer to establish that total property was not destroyed.

(2.) The present case is an instance of such frustrating and shocking story of protracted litigation of about 19 years, for realisation of insured money after the plaintiff-respondent lost all the insured goods in an accidental fire in April, 1967. The present appeal is by defendant insurer impugning the money decree of the insured sum obtained by the insured after 7 long years of litigation

(3.) Plaintiff-respondent is a registered partnership firm which came to subscribe a proposal of insurance at Silchar bearing the No. 6863 dated 31.10.65 against the risk of destruction by fire of the running stock in trade, furniture fixture etc. of the plaintiff's business in shoe, at Badarpur Bazar with the defendant No. 1, The Phoenix Assurance Co. Ltd., covering the risk of Rs. 30,000.00 on payment of premium of Rs. 208.50 P. per annum. The plaintiff renewed the policy from year to year by paying the premium in due time. Under the terms of the policy, the defendant insurer bound itself to pay the insured the value of the insured property in case of destruction thereof by accidental fire, to the extent of Rs. 30,000.00.