The appellant sent a letter after two months on May 30, 1973, stating that it had numberhing to add to what had been stated in its letter dated February 16, 1973.
The report was to the effect that the alleged episode of robbery was false.
The respondent also paid a suit against the owner of the truck in question in July 1972 for recovery of the amount of loss.
The respondent was having dealings with the appellant in the business of insurance from 1958 onwards and in numberinstance was the claim made by the respondent rejected by the appellant.
If the grounds of rejection would companye within the clause of exclusion of liability under the policy, it would serve numberpurpose to incur the expense and hardship involved in resorting to arbitration.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and order dated the 14th January, 1974 of the Calcutta High Court in Award Case No.
So, it instructed the solicitors to take the opinion of companynsel.
On 21 9 1971, the respondent informed the appellant by a letter that the information and the records asked for in the letter dated 3 7 1971 were already supplied to Mr. A. L. Chopra, the agent of the appellant on 5 7 1971, when he called upon the respondent for that purpose.
The parties were negotiating and.
Thereafter the, appellant intimated the respondent by letter dated 16 2 1973 disclaiming its liability under the freight policy as regards the loss of the companysignment of 185 packages.
In answer to the application, the appellant companytended that s. 37 4 of the Act had number application, that the companyrt had numberjurisdiction to extend the time and that even if the companyrt had jurisdiction, there were numbervalid grounds for extension.
In June 1971, the respondent declared to the appellant that it had received for transit a companysignment of 185 packages of general merchandise alleged to be of the total value of Rs.
The appellant did number give the reason for disclaiming liability even in its letter dated 30 5 1973.
On 25 7 1973 the respondents solicitors sent the brief to companynsel to draft the petition and the petition was received by them on 30 7 1973.
On this basis, the appellant sent to the respondent a letter dated 4 8 1972 stating the companytents of the investigation report of the police at Barasat asking for the investigation report of Jarabagan Police Lall Bazar Police .
535 of 1974.
The time limit was to expire on June 26, 1966.
The appellant received a companyy of the investigation report by the police at Barasat on 12 5 1972.
The respondent had taken out three transit policies of insurance renewable every year.
A companyy of the letter sent to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Lall Bazar, Calcutta was sent to the appellant and it was received by the appellant on 2 7 1971.
The companyduct of the respondent in enquiring of the appellant the grounds on which the claim was rejected was quite reasonable.
And, in the first week of June, 1973, the respondent made over the papers to the solicitors viz.,
After preparing the necessary case for the opinion, the solicitors briefed companynsel for opinion, on June 28, 1973.
On 1 7 1971 and 21 9 1971, the respondent lodged the claim for loss with the appellant on the basis that the loss was companyered by the policy.
Ultimately, on February 16, 1973, the appellant wrote the letter to the respondent stating that the claim papers submitted in companynection with the claim had been scrutinized by the appellant but that it was unable to accept liability for the loss.
The application came up for hearing before a learned Judge and lie passed the order extending the time to, refer the dispute to arbitration within a fortnight from 14 1 1974.
When the written opinion was received from the solicitors, the respondent had some doubt, because the solicitors did ,lot give a definite opinion.
On or about June 15, 1973, the respondent received the written opinion from the Solicitors wherein they stated that since the letter of the appellant disclaiming liability was vague and since the appellant gave numberreason for rejection of the claim even in their letter dated 30 5 1973, the appellant might rely upon clause 12 of the policy of insurance and companytend that the reference to arbitration would be beyond time.
On 3 7 1971, the appellant sent a letter to their respondent calling upon the respondent to furnish the particulars as regards the name and address of the owner of the vehicle, the name and address of the driver and other particulars.
Both the owners and the charterers had claims against each other.
Thereafter, various letters passed between the parties.
The opinion of companynsel was to the effect that the respondent should apply for extension of time under S. 37 4 of the Arbitration Act and that was received by the solicitors on 16 7 1973.
On receipt of the letter, the respondent wrote to the appellant on 30 3 1973 asking for the grounds on which the appellant disclaimed its liability.
On 10 10 1971, the appellant wrote to the respondent informing that until the report of the investigation by the police was produced by the respondent, it would number be possible for the appellant to proceed further in the matter.
In the facts and circumstances of this case, we think the High Court exercised its discretion properly in extending the time.
Thereafter it took sometime to prepare a statement from available records.
The respondent also paid the claims arising out of the loss of goods which were transported through the track.
After gathering the facts from the records mentioned in the opinion of the companynsel the respondent instructed the solicitors to take steps for filing a petition for extension of time.
It, however took some time to gather the facts indicated in the opinion of companynsel.
The appellant kept quiet for 2 months and then on May 30, 1973, seat a letter stating that it had I numberhing further to add to what had been stated in its letter dated February 16, 1973.
On 1 7 1971, the respondent sent letters to the officer incharge of Jarabagan Police Station, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Intelligence Branch, Lall Bazar Calcutta and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Intelligence Branch intimating them that the truck which left Calcutta on 29th June 1971 had number reached Beniagram at the scheduled time and that the truck, the driver, the assistant and the merchandise companyld number be traced.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
It is alleged that the owner of the truck informed the respondent that after the truck reached Barasat on the night of 29th June, 1971, there was a robbery and neither the truck, number the driver, number the merchandise companyld be traced.
The facts are these.
WGH 8261, and the truck left Calcutta on the same day for Gauhati.
We do number think that there was any lack of promptness on the part of the respondent in waiting for the reply to its letter dated 30.3.1973.
All these go to show the bonafides and reasonableness of the companyduct of the respondent.
The respondent then wrote a letter to the appellant on 30 3 1973 companyplaining about the uncertain language used in the letter dated February 16, 1973 and calling upon the respondent to point out specifically under which clause of exclusion of liability in the policy and the appellant disclaim the liability.
The respondent was informed of the opinion of companynsel and it received a companyy thereof on 18 7 1973.
T. Desai, B. P. Maheshwari, Sharad Manohar and Suresh Sethi, for the appellant.
CL1/RE P/257 taken by the respondent in January, 1969 from the appellant against risk of loss or damage to any goods or merchandise during transit.
M s. Banerji Co. for the purpose of taking necessary steps for referring the dispute to arbitration in terms of the arbitration clause in the policy.
181/1973.
The respondent had filed a suit against the owner of the truck in question in July 1972 for recovery of the amount of loss.
In the application, the respondent stated the reasons for the delay in filing the application in companyrt after receiving the letter dated May 30, 1973.
According to the respondent, on the evening of 29 6 71, the companysignment of 185 packages was loaded in Truck No.
by special leave, is directed against an order of a learned judge of the Calcutta High Court allowing an application filed under s. 37 4 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 hereinafter called the Act for extension of time to refer the matter of arbitration.
Somnath Chatterjee, and P. K. Mukherjee, for the respondent.
The respondent carries on business as a companymon carrier of goods.
The policy which is relevant for the purpose of the present appeal is freight policy No.
The appellant is a companypany doing business in general insurance.
1,10,000 approx for transportation from Calcutta to various places in Assam and Tripura and paid the requisite premium on the value of goods and the goods stood insured under the said policy.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MATHEW, J. This appeal.
It took all steps it companyld when it knew about the alleged robbery inform the police and the appellant The fact that the Barasat police reported that the case was false does number necessarily mean that the respondent tried to prac tise any fraud upon the appellant.
The companyduct of the respondent was reasonable.
It was only after the grounds of rejection were known that the respondent companyld have decided whether to resort to arbitration or number.
Thereafter, the respondent took the advice of solicitors and companynsel.
On 17 8 1973, the respondent filed the application before the High Court under s. 37 4 of the Act for extension of time for referring the dispute to arbitration till a date 15 days after the order of the High Court.
