P. Mariappa Mudaliar and Sons vs Life Insurance Corporation of India

Kailasam, J.—The petitioner is the consignor of certain goods from Karur to Kudra. The goods were despatched on 27th September,

1965, and was insured for the value of Rs. 297.20. After reaching the destination on October 21, 1965, they were stolen on December 8, 1965,

and the consignee came to know of the theft on 4th February, 1966. On a claim made by the consignor, the Life Insurance Corporation paid the

insured amount to the consignor. The present suit was filed by the Life Insurance Corporation of India for refund of the money which had been

wrongly paid to the consignor.

Mr. Srinivasan, the learned counsel for the petitioner-consignor, took three objections. He submitted that the question is not cognizable by the

Small Causes Court as any action coming from out of a policy of insurance is beyond the jurisdiction of the Small Causes Court. The learned

counsel relied on Article 34 of the Second Schedule which provides that a suit on a policy of insurance or for the recovery of any premium paid

under such policy is excepted from the cognizance of the Court of Small Causes. This suit is not one on a policy of insurance and the suits that are

excluded are suits on policy of insurance and not all suits which stem from out of disputes arising out of a policy of insurance. This contention has,

therefore, to be rejected.

It was next contended that under the policy of insurance, it covers the risk of theft or pilferage. The learned counsel would submit that this clause

would cover the theft which occurred at the destination a month and a half after the goods reached the destination. The condition of the policy

provides that the insurance commences with the loading of each bale or package into the truck and covers the risks of loss or damage occasioned

by fire, collision, breakage of bridges, derailment or accidents of a like nature whilst being conveyed by train and during transhipment at junctions.

It is also provided that the risks will cease three days after arrival of train at destination or on delivery by railway whichever may first occur, It will

be seen that the risk ceases three days after the arrival of train at destination or on delivery by railway whichever may first occur. In this case, the

delivery not having been effected, the risk under this clause ceases three days after the arrival of the train. The learned counsel for the petitioner

would rely on the clause relating to the theft which provides that the policy covers the risk of theft and contends that even though the theft might

have taken place three days after the goods reached the destination, so far as the theft clause is concerned, it is unlimited and until the goods are

cleared, the Life Insurance Corporation is liable. I am unable to accept this contention, for the various clauses of the policy will have to be read

together. The insurance cover commences with the loading and for the risks till three days after the arrival of the train. The clause that relates to

theft, though separate, can only mean, that theft during the period covered by the earlier clause would alone come under the insurance policy.

Reading the policy as a whole, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned counsel that so far as the risk of theft is concerned, the

liability is for an unlimited period till the goods are delivered.

Lastly, it was contended that the Life Insurance Corporation ought to have sued the consignee or the railway and not the consignor. This plea

also cannot be accepted for the money was claimed by the consignor and was paid to him by the Life Insurance Corporation. The Life Insurance

Corporation can only get it back from him and not from others. Therefore, all the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner are

rejected.

This revision petition is dismissed.