UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. JUGAL CHANDRA TALUKDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal valued at Rs. 3,68,730 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 21.12.1993 passed by Mr. B.K. Das, Learned District Judge, Kokrajhar in Money Suit No. 1 of 1991. The Learned District Judge by the impugned judgment decreed the suit for Rs. 3,66,710 with costs and with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum to be computed from the date of institution of the suit till realisation. The suit was, however, dismissed against respondent No. 2, i.e., the State of Assam.

(2.) The respondent-plaintiff's case was that he is the owner of Tata minibus No. AML 1718. The defendant No. 3, namely, the Senior Power Station Superintendent took the said vehicle on hire with effect from 23.3.1989 for patrol duty within the jurisdiction of Bongaigaon Thermal Power Station in view of the disturbed law and order situation. The vehicle was duly insured with the defendant No. 4, namely, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Madras having its Branch Office at Bongaigaon. The said vehicle, while on patrol duty, was badly damaged due to bomb blast over a bridge near B.T.P.S. Complex in the night of 27.3.1989. The plaintiffs demand for payment of compensation and loss of income was rejected by the defendants. The plaintiff had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1,67,000 to repair the vehicle. It is further averred in the plaint that the law and order situation due to agitation of ABSU was extremely bad and no agreement could be made with the respondent No. 3. The respondents also hired minibus No. AXA 7818 and paid Rs. 17,000 per month as hire charges. Plaintiff claimed Rs. 17,000 per month from 23.3.1989 to 23.3.1990, the date when the vehicle became roadworthy after repair. The total loss on account of hire charges amounted to Rs, 2,01,730 and the plaintiff served a notice upon the respondent No. 1 under section 80, Civil Procedure Code claiming the said amount. The plaintiff also issued notice to other defendants claiming comprehensive compensation of Rs. 3,68,730. On refusal, the plaintiff instituted the suit.

(3.) The defendant No. 1 in their written statement denied their liability and maintained that there was no failure on their part to maintain law and order in the area. The defendant Nos. 2 and 3, apart from legal pleas, admitted that the vehicle was taken on hire with effect from 23.3.1989 and that it was damaged due to bomb blast while on duty. They have admitted that they are liable to pay hire charges only for five days, i.e., from 23.3.1989 to 27.3.1989 and not responsible for any payment on account of damage caused by bomb blast beyond their control. Plaintiffs claim that he had spent Rs. 1,67,000 for repair has been denied. The defendant No. 5, i.e., the insurance company denied that the vehicle was insured with them against terrorist attack and they pleaded protection under sections 95 and 96 (2) of Motor Vehicles Act.