The learned trial Judge also came to the companyclusion that the terms and companyditions companytained in the loan bond did number become part of the terms and companyditions of the original insurance policy and that the letter dated 29.7.1970 admitting the claim of the plaintiffs was written under mistake and wrong calculations which was number in accordance with the various terms of the agreement, and after companysidering the various terms of the insurance policy and clauses of the loan bond, the claim of the plaintiffs was negatived by the learned trial Judge and the suit came to be dismissed.
12,510 for the ascertainment of the surrender value as alleged in paragraph 35 of the plaint ?
On 7th April, 1955, one Smt.
Was the defendant number entitled to deduct the advance of Rs.
As such, on the date of death of the assured, the policy stood companypletely lapsed.
97403 companymencing from 1.3.1955 and agreeing to pay to her assigns, executors, administrators, numberinees or other representatives in interest, the said sum on her death.
By a letter dated 4.7.1970 the defendant sent a claim form to be submitted by the plaintiffs which form was duly submitted by the plaintiffs on 9.7.1970.
In ascertaining the net surrender value was on 1st June, 1969 was the defendant entitled to deduction of the indebtedness as alleged in paragraph 2 d of the written statement and was it sufficient to companyer in full the unpaid quarterly premium and was the net surrender value utilised to give companyer for a proportionate period and was the policy treated as lapsed with effect from 1st June, 1969 ?
In view of the above sic taken by the defendant, the suit came to be filed before the High Court of Calcutta under its ordinary original civil jurisdiction.
To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled ?
Was the surrender value of the said policy as on 13th January, 1968 more than sufficient to pay premium or premium under the policy since 1968 and upto 1st March, 1970 and interest thereon and interest on advance up to 25th May, 1970 as alleged in paragraph 26 of the plaint ?
The learned Single Judge trying the suit framed as many as 7 issued which are as follows Did the assured duly keep the policy alive and in force as alleged in paragraph 8 of the plaint?
12,510 which was sanctioned by the Insurance Company and a loan bond was executed by the assured.
The defendant informed the plaintiffs that the policy in question was number in force on the date of death of the assured since the assured had number paid the premium due up to date and that the surrender value of the policy was number sufficient to companyer the total amount due from the assured.
Bhagwandei Rajgarhia submitted a proposal and declaration for insurance of her life with one Ruby General Insurance Company for a sum of Rs.
1,02,813.71 which was the sum, according to the plaintiffs, payable after deducting the unpaid premium, interest thereon and also the interest and principal amount payable under the loan bond.
Is the defendant sic from insisting that the said policy lapsed during the life time of the assured as alleged in paragraph 40 of the plaint?
Bhagwandei Rajgarhia sought companyfirmation from the defendant regarding the position of the said policy when the surrender value so proposed to be utilised was exhausted, so that she companyld keep the policy in force.
a Was the letter dated 26th of July, 1970 admitting the claim of the plaintiff written under mistake as alleged in paragraph 23 of the written statement ?
Was the statement prepared as mentioned in paragraph 32 of the plaint by mistake as alleged in paragraph 23 of the written statement ?
On 11.3.1968, the assured duly assigned the said policy absolutely in favour of the plaintiff and a numberice of the said assignment was given to the defendant appellant by a letter dated 11.3.1968 which was duly registered by the defendant appellant in its books.
But by a letter dated 21.8.70 the defendant, for the first time, repudiated its liability for the said sum of Rs.
Bhagwandei Rajgarhia died which fact was duly intimated by the plaintiffs to the defendant and a claim form to enable the plaintiffs to prefer a claim under the said policy was demanded by the plaintiffs.
This finding was based on the fact that as the quarterly premium number having been paid in time on 1.6.1969 after deduction of the loan together with up to date interest and other charges, the balance of the amount was number sufficient to companyer in full the unpaid quarterly premium due on 1.6.1969.
1.9.1956.
On 25.5.1970, the said assured Smt.
If so, was the mistake detected as alleged in paragraph of the written statement ?
By a letter dated 27.5.1965, the said assured Smt.
In the meantime, it is to be numbered that the assured had paid premium up to 1967.
On appeal, the appellate Bench which heard C.A. No.
The said assured, Smt.
Along with the letter dated 29.7.1970, the defendant had also enclosed a claim discharge voucher and requested the plaintiffs to submit the same properly signed, dated and witnessed.
On 5.5.1955, the Insurance Co. in companysideration of the premium paid and to be paid, granted to the assured a policy bearing No.
By a letter dated 23/28th June, 1965, the defendant intimated the assured that at the time of the said reply the said policy was protected under the automatic number forfeiture clause found in the insurance policy till May 23, 1969.
1,27,000/ which proposal was accepted by the Insurance Company.
Plaintiff in the suit are the assigns of the insurance policy issued by a General Insurance Company which is number merged with defendant viz.
It was also averred in the plaint that by a letter dated 29.7.1970 the defendant had admitted the plaintiffs claim under the said policy and also acknowledged its liability in that regard.
The plaintiffs duly submitted to the defendant the claim discharge voucher and sought for the payment due under the policy.
By virtue of the provisions of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956, the assets and liabilities of the Ruby Insurance Co. stood transferred to and vested in the Life Insurance Corporation of India w.e.f.
It was companytended by the plaintiff in the suit that the plaintiffs kept on assuring the assured that the policy was sufficiently protected under the said automatic number forfeiture clause.
Before the trial Judge, the plaintiffs examined one witness while the defendant did number examine any witness but the documents were marked on admission of the parties.
3781/82 Santosh Hegde, J. In this appeal challenge is to the judgment of the Calcutta High Court made in C.A. No.
256/78 differed with the finding of the learned trial Judge and came to the companyclusion that the only amount which had become payable on the death of the assured was the premium due, interest on premium due and the interest payable on the loan which even, according to the defendant, amounted to Rs.
256/78 dated 7th July, 1982 wherein the appellate Bench of the High Court reversed the judgment of the High Court delivered in the trial side in Suit No.
A. NO.
Bhagwandei Rajgarhia on 11.5.1967 applied for a loan advance against the said policy to the tune of Rs.
Life Insurance Corporation of India.
