- (1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 40 of the Displaced Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act 1951 (No. LXX of 1951), hereinafter called the Act.
(2.) ONE S. N. Jaggi made an ap plication under Section 13 read with Sec tion 18 of the Act before the Civil Judge of Allahabad who was constituted as the Tribunal under the Act. The applicant claimed recovery of a sum of Rs. 18, 500/-from the National Security Assurance Com pany Limited (hereinafter called the Com pany) as compensation for the loss -suffered by him on account of the looting and des truction of his property during the dis turbances and riots on 7th and 8th of Sep tember 1947 in the town of Peshawar. The company had insured the goods in the shop covering a risk to the amount of Rs. 18, 500/- and the goods in the house cover ing a risk to the amount of Rs. 8, 000/-under a contract evidenced by a document of insurance policy No. 12225. The insur ance policy was effective during the period 13-9- 1946 to 13-9-1947. At the time when the said insurance policy was issued the head office of the company was situate at Lahore and the applicant Jaggi was carry ing on business of an optician in a shop at Arbad Road, Peshawar Cantt. The appli cant's house was attacked by the rioters in. September 1947 and the household goods including trading goods kept in the house for which the company had covered a risk to the extent of Rs. 8, 000/- were looted. The applicant in accordance with the terms of the insurance policy sent immediate intimation to the company about the loss of the goods worth Rs. 8, 000/-. Though the shop in Arbad Road was also looted but the applicant did not lay any claim with the company in regard to the insured property in the shop and it turned out on evidence in the proceedings giving rise to this appeal that the applicant had no knowledge of it and he came to know about the incident only when he had arrived in India as a refugee sometime in January, 1948, having left Peshawar on account of disturbances. Meanwhile the company also shifted its Head-office to Simla. When the applicant learnt about the loss of the goods of the shop in Arbad Road in Peshawar he at once laid a claim with the company demanding the sum of Rs. 18, 500/-. But the company expressed its inability to pay the amount claimed as the intimation to it of the inci dent of looting of the shop in Arbad Road, Peshawar, was not given within fifteen days of the occurrence as required by clause (11) of the contract of insurance policy. As re gards the sum of Rs. 8, 000/- for the loss of the goods kept in the house at Peshawar, the company refused payment on technical pretexts. The applicant then filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 8, 000/- in the civil court at Delhi which suit eventually ended in a com promise, the company having agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 5, 500/- in full settlement of the claim under the insurance policy. The applicant then came and settled at Allahabad having opened a shop for carrying on his old business of an optician. On 9th December, 1951, the Act was applied to Uttar Pradesh. The applicant then made the application giving rise to this appeal for recovery of Rs. 18, 500/- claimed as debt by him as a displaced person from the company in the court of the Civil Judge of Allahabad. The company contested the claim of the applicant inter alia on the ground that the Tribunal at Allahabad had no jurisdiction; that the company itself was a displaced per son having its Head-Office first at Simla and then at Delhi, that the claim of the appli cant was barred by Order 2, Rule 2, of C. P. Code; that the applicant having received ; Rs. 5, 500/- in Delhi in full settlement of the I claim under the policy was not entitled to claim any further sum under the said policy and that the claim of the applicant was not in accordance with law. 2-A. On the pleadings of the parties the Tribunal framed the necessary issues which were as follows:- (1) (a) Is the respondent a displaced per son within the meaning of Displac- j ed Persons (Debts Adjustment) Act 1951 ? If so, is the suit not main- j tainable in this court as provided j under Section 10 ? (b) What is the effect of Section 18 of, the said Act on the question of j jurisdiction ? (2) Is the applicant a displaced person I within the meaning of the said Act? (3) Is the suit barred under Order 2, Rule 2, Civil Procedure Code, as al leged in the written statement ? (4) Did the applicant's policy cover Riot Risk as alleged in paras 4 and 5 of the plaint ? (5) Did the applicant suffer damage in respect of the goods stored in the shop as alleged on account of any riots ? If so, to what extent ? (6) Did the respondent make any payment in full satisfaction of the claim under the policy in suit i.e., under the compromise as alleged in the written statement ? (7) To what relief, if any, is the applicant entitled ? (8) Whether the applicant gave information to the respondent of the loss within one year of the loss ? If so, or not, its effect. (9) Has the applicant not complied with the conditions of the policy as alleg ed in para 8 of the written statement and is the applicant's claim within time ? On a consideration of the mate rial on record the Tribunal recorded its findings. On issue No. 1 (a) it held that the company was not a displaced person as there was no evidence on record that it shifted its Head-office to Simla on account of the disturbances or as a result of parti tion. The issue No. 1 (b) was answered in favour of the applicant the Tribunal having held that provisions of Section 18 override the provisions of Section 10 of the Act, as suming the company was a displaced per son the application for the claim against the company was competently filed before the Tribunal at Allahabad.
(3.) ON issue No. 2 it was held that the applicant was a displaced person with in the meaning of the Act.;