NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD Vs. SOUTH EASTERN ROADWAYS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brief facts of the case are that M/s. Dharam Pal Satya Pal, hereinafter referred to as the insured, obtained a Marine Special Declaration Policy from the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. for the period 5.4.1988 to 4.4.1989. The insured booked two consignments from Sahibabad to Patna vide (i) G. R. dated 2.9.1998 for Rs.2,08,442.60, and (ii) G. R. dated 1.9.1988 for Rs.2,46,793.79. The goods covered by the two consignments were loaded in truck No. UTH 1116 and it left U. P. Border for Patna on 6.9.1988. The truck did not report at Patna and the goods were not delivered to the consignee. A claim for Rs.4,55,263.39 was made against the Insurance Company on 24.9.1988. After investigation of the case, the Insurance Company paid the aforesaid amount on 10.4.1989. Subrogation letter was executed in favour of the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company, in turn, took-up the matter with the aforesaid Transport Company on 16.3.1990, the Transport Company paid a sum of Rs.1,54,781/- by cheque to the Insurance Company leaving a balance of Rs.3,04,055/-. The Insurance Company alone filed the present complaint on 29.8.1991 against South Eastern Roadways for the payment of the balance amount together with interest and costs etc.

(2.) In the written statement filed by the Transport Company, it was stated that following the claim put forward by the Insurance Company there were negotiations. The Transport Company was willing to pay 20% of the claimed amount and the Insurance Company was willing to accept 35% of the amount. Ultimately a sum of Rs.1,54,781/- being 33% of the amount was accepted by the Insurance Company by cheque and the necessary discharge voucher was signed by the authorised representative of the complainant (Insurance Company) in full and final settlement of the claim and the Insurance Company was, therefore, estopped from claiming any further amount. Objection was also taken regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the Commission as the goods were booked at Sahibabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh and were to be delivered at Patna and the Head Office of the respondent Company was at Bangalore and no part of cause of action had arisen at Delhi. It was also pleaded that the parties had agreed to the jurisdiction of the Courts at Bangalore and the said agreement was binding between the parties. Mr. Vijay Khosia filed affidavit on behalf of the complainant and Mr. Mittal filed affidavit on behalf of the opposite party.

(3.) Both the parties filed interrogatories which were answered by Mr. Vijay Khosia and Mr. Mittal respectively.