and 3.
The car was taken to car repairing workshop of P.S.N. Motors Ltd., Trichur and left there and an intimation of the accident was sent to the Insurer requesting it to discharge its obligation under the policy of insurance.
Accordingly, the suit was decreed with companyts.
The companytract of bailment was seriously disputed and it was submitted that the car was handed over to the workshop by the plaintiffs son and the insurance companypany had only agreed to re imburse the loss and the workshop owner was number the agent of the Insurer number was the insurance companypany a bailee number companyld it be said that the agent of the bailee was in possession of the car.
Assuring you of our best services always.
The repairer to whom the car was handed over prepared an estimate of the repair charges in the amount of Rs.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 2nd January, 1969 of the Kerala High Court in A.S. No.
were Lying without ascertaining whether the workshop was insured against fire and other risks, the Insurer was liable to make good the loss.
The High Court held that companydition No.
Since the date of the accident the car was in the custody of the repairer for the purpose of repairs.
The plaintiff claimed the value of the Motor Car on the footing that the respondent company was a bailee of the Motor Car and had failed to take such care thereof as a person of ordinary prudence would under similar circumstances take of his property of the same quality and value as the Motor Car bailed.
7 of the policy of insurance.
The plaintiff called upon the Insurer to idemnify him for the loss as per the terms of the policy of insurance alleging that the Motor Car was in the possession and custody of M s P.S.N. Motors Ltd on behalf of the Insurer and was being repaired at the sole responsibility of the Insurer under its instruction and since the Insurer had entrusted the Motor Car for repairs to a workshop in which several automobiles with inflammable materials like oil, petrol, tyres etc.
7 of the policy of insurance an aspect of the matter which is companycluded against the respondent company and, therefore, it is number necessary to set out in extenso the companytention under this head.
The Insurer companytested the claim, inter alia, companytending.
2010 and forwarded the same to the Insurer.
that the suit is number maintainable in view Condition No.
the value of the motor car destroyed.
Whether the respondent Company failed to take as much care of the motor car as a person of ordinary prudence would in similar circumstances take of his own motor car of the same quality and value ?
Hence this appeal by the plaintiff by special leave.
P 13 dated March 25, 1953 wrote to the plaintiff and the repairer as under We have pleasure to inform you that the revised estimate of M s P.S.N. Motors Ltd., Trichur has been approved by our head office, and they have been advised to proceed with the repairs and send us their final bill together with the discharge voucher duly filled in and signed by you, for making the payment.
After some protracted companyrespondence, the Insurer accepted the estimate of repair charges in the amount of Rs.
When the matter went back to the High Court, the appeal was heard by a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court.
The plaintiff preferred Civil Appeal No.
An appeal was preferred to the High Court of Kerala at the insurance of the Insurer.
Sudhakaran for Respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The High Court, accordingly, allowed the appeal of the insurance companypany and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff directing the parties to bear their respective companyts.
The suit was held to be maintainable, despite companydition No.
B. Pai, D.N. Misra, O.C. Mathur and Miss. Meera Mathur for the Appellant.
MRK Pillai for the Respondent No.
P 1 dated March 4, 1952 was from March 1, 1952 to February 28, 1953.
1910 and the Insurer by its letter dated Ext.
7 of the policy of insurance precluded the plaintiff from filing the suit before obtaining the award and on the short ground allowed the appeal of the Insurer and dismissed the suit.
By the time the appeal was filed in this Court, the General Insurance Business Nationalisation Act, 1972 was enacted and brought into operation.
7,000 from the respondent Insurance Company for short is knocking at the doors of Courts of Justice since last three decades and mirage of justice is still eluding him, and in his chase presumably he must have spent double the amount than prayed for in the plaint because this is the second round when the matter has reached the apex companyrt.
The period companyered by the policy of insurance Ext.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J. Plaintiff whose car was destroyed in fire way back in July 1953 and claimed a paltry sum of Rs.
2202 of 1969.
This car suffered damage in an accident which occurred on December 21, 1952.
Plaintiff, who is the appellant was the owner of Austin 16 H.P. Motor Car, which he had insured with the original first defendant Vanguard Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. Insurer for short in respect of accident, loss or damage.
142 of 1965 by special leave to this Court.
This last submission alleging a companytract of bailment is seriously disputed by the respondent insurance companypany.
The trial companyrt held that the Motor Car was entrusted to the repairer for and on behalf of the Insurer and the insurance companypany was liable for the loss of the Motor Car as it was in possession of the agent of the insurance companypany.
838 of 1958.
