BRAHM DUTT SHARMA Vs. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA
LAWS(ALL)-1965-12-25
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on December 24,1965

BRAHM DUTT SHARMA Appellant
VERSUS
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

ALAMANI V. POSITIVE GOVT. SECURITY LIFE ASSURANCE CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
DAWSONS LTD. V. BONNIN [REFERRED TO]
GREAT EASTERN LIFE ASSURANCE CO. V. BAI HIRA [REFERRED TO]
SAILA BALA DASSI VS. NIRMALA SUNDARI DASSI [REFERRED TO]
ALL INDIA GENERAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. S P MAHESWARI [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

KAMLA WANTI VS. L I C OF INDIA [LAWS(ALL)-1981-8-1] [REFERRED TO]
RAMATHAL AND ANR. VS. NAGARATHINAMMAL AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-1966-11-18] [REFERRED TO]
MURALI LAL PODDAR VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED [LAWS(JHRCDRC)-2004-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
KALI CHARAN VS. ICICI BANK [LAWS(HPH)-2015-10-32] [REFERRED TO]
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. SURJAN SINGH SAINI [LAWS(NCD)-1999-4-128] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

Uniyal, J. - (1.)1. The plaintiff has filed this appeal from the decree or the Civil Judge, Meerut, dismissing his suit with costs.
(2.)THE facts giving rise to this appeal, shortly stated, are as follows: On the 15th January 1951 Mukhtar Singh, deceased unole of me appellant, made an application for insurance in the Crown Life Insurance Company, Toronto, Canada, with its branch office at Bombay (hereinafter referred to as the Company) for a sum of Rs. 35,000. In that application he stated his occupation as landlord and mill owner, Weaving and Spinning Mills, and his place of residence as C/o Brahma Dutta Sharma, Gujrati Well. Meerut City. On the basis of the above application the Company issued an interim policy to Mukhtar Singh on the 19th February 1951. THE interim policy was approved by the Head Office of the Company which issued Insurance Policy No. 573766, dated 21st May 1951 in favour of the said Mukhtar Singh. In that policy the appellant was described as the nominee of the assured after his death. THE policy was issued subject to the endorsements contained therein, Clause 4 of the endorsement reads: "After the expiry of two years from the date on which it shall have been effected, this policy shall not be called in question by the company on the ground that a statement made in the application therefor or in any other document leading to the issue of the policy was inaccurate or false, unless the company shall show that such statement was on a material matter and fraudulently made by the insured and that the insured knew at the time of making it that the statement was false." Clause 4 laid down that the application for the policy and any additional statements made to the company, together with the policy and its endorsements, shall constitute the entire contract between the parties. Clause 10 provided that on the policy becoming a claim by death, proof of claim shall include such evidence under oath as may be required by the company of the death of the insured and the causes leading thereto, and of the title of the claimant and proof of age as mentioned in Clause 8 and such other information as the company may deem necessary to establish the validity of the contract.
The first quarterly premium on the policy was admittedly paid on the 12th February 1951 by the appellant himself. The second quarterly premium was also paid by the appellant through a draft or mail transfer on 19/21 May, 1951.

Mukhtar Singh Sharma died at Meerut on the night between the 19th and 20th August 1951 and notice of his death and that of the plaintiffs claim was sent to the defendant Company on the 15th September 1951 on the basis of the nomination of the policy in the appellant's favour. The Company by letter, dated the 16th October 1951 wrote to the appellant to give full names and addresses of the persons who were present at the time of the demise of the insured and stated that in accordance with endorsement No. 10 of the policy the Company was entitled to call for such other information that it considered necessary to establish the validity of the contract. Eventually the Company refused the claim of the appellant on the ground that Mukhtar Singh assured had made false and incorrect declarations in his application Ex. A-10 as to his status and occupation, and also as to his residential and business address. Thereupon the appellant brought the suit for recovery or Rs. 35,000 out of which this appeal has arisen.

(3.)THE suit was resisted by the Company inter alia on the ground that the statements made by the assured Mukhtar Singh Sharma in Part I and Part II of the application for policy were false and that since these statements were agreed to be the basis for contract of insurance the suit was liable to be dismissed. It was further pleaded that the insurance policy was not really effected by Mukhtar Singh Sharma deceased for his use and benefit but was got effected by the appellant for his own use and benefit and that the appellant had no insurable interest in the life of the deceased,
The Civil judge was of the view that the defendant Company had failed to establish that the age given by Mukhtar Singh Sharma in his application for insurance was incorrect and that there was no credible evidence to prove that the declaration made by him regarding his health was false. These findings have not been challenged by the learned counsel for the respondent. He, however, held that Mukhtar Singh assured made false and incorrect statements in Ex. A-10 as to his occupation and status, as well as his business and residential address. He also came to the conclusion that the insurance policy in question was effected and financed by the appellant for his own benefit and that the appellant had no insurable interest in the life of the deceased.

;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.