LexPANNALAL JANKIDAS versus MOHANLAL AND ANOTHER.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' -
:t'
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
979
say that an apportionment under section 26 (2) would
be meaningless, though, if the testator's estate was
sufficiently solvent,
it would have
no practical
significance.
DAS J.-I agree with the Chief Justice.
Appeal dismissed.
Agent for the appellant: R. S. Narula.
Agent for the respondent: P. A.Mehta.
PANNALAL JANKIDAS
v.
MOHANLAL AND ANOTHER.
(SHRr'HARILAL KANIA C.J ., PATANJALI SASTRI
and DAs JJ.]
Contract-Damages-Remoteness of damage-Agent neglecting
ta inwre goads against fire-Goads destroyed by explosian-Liabi·
lity al agent-Bombay Explosion (Compensation) Ordinance, 1944,
ss. 14, 18-0rdinance granting compensation for damage by explo-
sion-Loss by explosioii not covered by policy-Loss of compensation
undu Ordinance by failure to insttre-Whetlwr direct or remote
damage-Claim by principal against agent, whet/wr barred by Ordin·
ance-Indian Contract Aot, 1872, s. 212.
The plaintiffs who were commission agents purchased piece-
goods according to defendant's instructions and storsd a portion
of the goods in a godown in Bombay pending receipt of a permit
from the Government authorities for consigning the same to the
defendants. Before the goods could be despatched,a big explosion
occurred in the Bombay Harbour and the goods stored were des-
troyed either by the fire or the explosion.
A few months later the
Governor-General promulgated the Born bay Explosion (Compensa·
tion) Ordinance, 1944, which provided, inter alia, (i) that the Govern-
ment shall pay a compensation of 50 per cent. of the damage caused
in respeet of uninsured goods, and the entire damage in reepect
of insured goods; and (ii) that no person 8hall have or be deemed
ever to have bad, otherwise than under the Ordinance any right
whether in contract or in tort or otherwise to any compensation
for damage to or loss of property arising out of the explosion and
no suit or other legal proceeding for any such compensation or
damage shall be maintaiDable in any civil court. The plaintiffs
received GO per cent. of the value of the destroyed goods as \hey
!950
Etttcutors of
the Estaf4 of
J. K. Dubt:uh
••
Commissioner of
Income-ta:t,
Bombay City.
Patanjali
Saatri J.
1950
Dae. 21.
,
•
1960
Pannalal
Jankida!
v
Mohanlal and
Another.
'
980
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1950]
were not insured, and, alleging that as agents they bad the right
to be indemnifiod by the defendants, sued the latter 1or recovery
of the remaining 50 per cent. of the value of the goods. The
defendants pleaded, and it was found as a fact, that they bad in-
structed the plaintiffs, and the latter bad agreed, to insure the
goods but had omitted to do so, and they claimed that inasmuch
as they would have been entitled to receive the full value of the
goods as compensation under the Ordinance if the plaintiffs bad
insured, they were entitled to set off or counter claim the value
of the goods as damages caused to them by the neglect or breach
of duty of the plaintiffs.
Held per KANIA C.J. and
DAS J. (PATANJALI SASTRI J.
dissenting).-(i) As full compensation under the Ordinance was
payable on proof of the existence of a fire insurance policy irres-
pective of the terms of the policy, and the non-recovery of half
the value of the goods from the Government under the Ordinance
was due to the absence of a fire insurance policy, the loss to the
defendants arose directly from the neglect or breach of duty of
the plaintiffs to insure the goods as they had been instructed and
agreed to do; intervention of the Ordinance did npt break the
chain of causation or make the loss remote 6r indirect; the Ordin·
ance did not create any new liability but only quantified the
damages; and the fact that it did not exist at the time of the ex-
plosion and could not have been in the contemplation of the
parties was irrelevant for deciding the question of liaibility;
{ii) the plea of the defendants was not barred by the Ordin-
na.nce inasmuch a.a their cause of action against the plaintiffs
was misconduct of the lg,tter in the business of their agency, and
this cause of action was completed by the averment that there
was a duty or a.greement to insure, that there was failure to per·
form that duty and that the failure bad caused damage to the
defendants, and the quantum of the damages was not a part of
the ca.use of action.
Per PATANJALI SAoTR( J.-(i: The defendants' inability to
recover the fulExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.