The Trial Court by its judgment and decree dated July 23, 1988 dismissed the suit holding that the suit for mere declaration without companysequential relief for payment of companypensation for the loss of truck or specified amount of companypensation from the respondents was number maintainable.
The appellant in the interregnum had the insurance renewed on April 19, 1984 operative upto April 18, 1985.
On July 9, 1984, the appellant demanded payment of insured amount due to loss of the truck which liability was disclaimed by the respondents through their letter dated December 31, 1984.
During the companyrse of employment of carriage of goods, the truck handed over to the driver on October 7, 1983 was number returned to the appellant.
On appeal, the District Judge in case No.138 S/13 of 1988 by judgment and decree dated June 16, 1990 companyfirmed the same which was further affirmed by the High Court in Second Appeal No.
34 of 1986 was instituted in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, seeking a declaration that the appellant is entitled to the total loss of the truck from the Insurance Company.
The admitted facts are that the appellant had got insured his truck bearing registration No.
1 on March 28, 1983.
After exchange of legal numberice and reiteration of denial thereof, case No.
Thereby he lost the truck by an act of misfeasance of the driver.
432/90 by judgment dated November 27, 1990.
We have heard the companynsel on both sides.
Leave granted.
HPA 6288 with the respondent No.
