G. M. LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal under Order 41, rule 1 and u/s. 96 (1), C. P. C. against the judgment and decree of the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City.
(2.) THE plaintiff firm insured with the defendant company one registered post parcel (Air Mail) containing precious stones to the extent of Rs 50. 000/-and the goods valued at Rs 16 000/-on the terms and conditions contained in the certificate of declaration (Ex. 1 ). THE plaintiff despatched a shipment of precious stones through General Post Office, Jaipur to the America Security and Trust Company, Rennsylvania and 15th St.- Washington D. C. for the account of M/s. Joseph M. Chatriot and Brothers, Washington D. C. (U. S. A. ). This was sent through plaintiff's bankers, the Bank of Baroda, Tripolia Bazar, Jaipur. THE Bank of Baroda in its turn as representative of the plaintiff sent the papers to Washington Bank in U. S. A. , whose name is American Security & Trust Company. THE consignment was sent on 7. 6. 69 by the plaintiff addressed to the American Security and Trust Company. THE consignment reached there, but the dispute arose about taking delivery from the Post Office. Now it is not in dispute that the fact of receipt of the consignment by the Post Office was made known to M/s. Joseph M. Chatriot & Brothers. Ultimately, the delivery was not taken and the consignment was lost while it was in the Post Office. The plaintiff wanted to enforce the insurance policy and certificate notice on the defendant. After framing of the issues, evidence was recorded. The suit has been dismissed on the ground that there was a clause in the insurance policy (Ex. 1) (E. F.), which reads as under:- "the policy does not cover claims for delay and/or loss of market. It also excludes the infidelity of the insured's and/or consignee's own messsanger. " The actual detailed clause of insurance in the insurance policy may be noticed, which is as under: - "insured against "total LOSS" only of the parcel from the time of issue of the registered receipt until that of delivery of the parcel to the consignees or their representatives and their signatures to the Post Office. Also insured against the risk of non-delivery of complete post parcel subject to institute non-delivery (insured value) clause. "
(3.) IT also excludes the infidelity of the insured's and/or consignee's own messanger. Now, after hearing Mr. Kasliwal and Mr. Srivastava, I am of the opinion that this appeal has got no force and deserves to be dismissed. The reason is very obvious. The infidelity clause of the insurance policy is very patent. It means unfaithfulness. According to the Websters Dictionary, infidelity means, "unfaithfulness, lack of faith or belief, state or character being infidal, breach of trust, unfaithfulness to a charge, disloyality". By the reading of Ex. 11 and Ex. 12, it is clear that after the consignment was received in the Post Office at Washington, both the consignee bank as well as M/s. Joseph M. Chatriot and Brothers, Washington refused to take delivery. The bank took the stand that it is none of its obligation to take delivery and the Bank would not send his representative before the customs and own the property. ;