K S JAVARI Vs. BHAGWAT PARSHAD MANGLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a rule directed against the order of Mr. Harnarain Singh, Magistrate, First Class, gurgaon, whereby he issued process against the petitioners. A petition for quashing of proceedings in the Court of the learned Magistrate has been filed in this Court Under Section c61a, Criminal P. C.

(2.) THE facts which have led to this petition are that on 18th May 1918, the respondent Bhagwat pershad Mangla insured a truck with the Sentinel Assurance Company Ltd. , for RSection 15,000. On 18th November 1948, this truck is alleged to have caught fire and was damaged. A claim waa made by the insured for the amount and on 13th December 1948, the Zonal Secretary of the company at New Delhi, H. P. Bhattacharjee, wrote a letter to the insured confirming a telegram which was in the following terms: "arrange transportation accidented truck 450 Premnath motors, Scindhiahouse New Delhi. " The letter went on to say "we may add that we shall pay you reasonable expenses (within the provisions of the policy) towards your cost for this work. " On 16th December 1918, K. S. Javeri, General Manager of this company wrote a letter in which inter alia it is stated that the Delhi office has been instructed to remove the truck to Messrs. Prem nath Motors for repairs, and it ended up by Saying "we hope that you will have already removed the truck accordingly. " On 16th January 1949, another letter was written by the General manager, K. S. Javari, in which it was said "the same will be made over to you after repairs against issue of the necessary satisfaction note by you. " On 16th February 1949, the company repudiated the claim of the complainant for Rs. 245. 5-0 which perhaps was for the salvage. and transportation cost of the truck. On 12th Maroh 1949, in terms of the policy there was some kind of reference to arbitration which fell through and on 2lst July 1949, Bhagwat Per-shad Mangla filed a complaint in the Court of a Magistrate in Gurgaon in which he narrated most of these facts and also referred to the letter of 18th December 1918, in which the company had promised to pay reasonable expenses "within the provisions of the policy. "

(3.) IN para 6 of the complaint it is stated :