SOUTH INDIAN CO OPERATIVE INSURANCE SOCIETY LTD Vs. V BAPI RAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS, is a Letters Patent Appeal admitted by a learned Bench of this court against C. M. A. No. 522 of 1952, against an order by Basheer Ahmed Sayeed J. dismissing an appeal against an order of the learned City Civil Judge Madras, refusing to stay O. S. No. 405 of 1952 under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 10 of 1940.

(2.) THE facts are shortly these. Appellant and the defendant in the suit is the South India Co-operative Insurance Society. Ltd.. Madras. THE suit was filed by the plaintiff respondent as a nominee of an insurance policy taken but with, this society by his late brother, Mr. Viyyanna, an advocate, who died on 10-4-1949. THE policy was a double endowment policy No. 2190 dated 9-4-1935, under which a sum of Rs. 1,000 was payable if the assured died within a period of 15 years from the date of the policy. An enhanced sum of Rs. 2,000 would become payable if he survived this period. THE policy matured on 8-4-1950 and the last premium was payable on 9-1-1950. THE Society claimed that it was liable to pay only Rs. 1,000, less arrears of premium for three months. Plain-tiff on various grounds sought to recover Rs. 2,000, or in the alternative, refund of the excess of premia paid over and above the sum of Rs. 1,000. One of the grounds set out in the plaint was that this double endowment policy was of the nature of a wagering contract.

(3.) IN our opinion there can be no doubt, in the first place, that this claim by the nominee of an insured person against this co-operative insurance society for payment of what is due under a policy is a dispute touching the business of this society. Section 51 (1) (b) specifically refers to disputes between persons claiming through a member past member or deceased member of the society. We are unable to accept the view taken of this explanation that it brought only claims by the Society for debts or demands due to it from members, past members or their nominees and so on within the scope of a dispute compulsorily referable to the Registrar and excluded claims of a similar nature by the members against a society, which could not therefore be referred to the Registrar for decision under the Act, but which were enforceable only by action in a civil court. If the explanation were taken away altogether. Section 51 (1) would, in our opinion, clearly make disputes, including claims for debts or demands touching the business of the society made either by the society against its members, or by its members or persons claiming through them against the society, compulsorily referable to the Registrar for decision, the only criterion being whether the dispute touched the business of the society.