LexSTERLING GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus PLANTERS AIRWAYS PVT. LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
136 STERLING GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. PLANTERS AIRWAYS PVT. LTD. December 19, 1974 [K. MA!HEW, P. N. BHAGWATI AND N. L. UNTWALTA, JJ.) Arbitratio11 Act, 1940, Section 37(4)-"Undue hardship", meaning of-· f:Jitensio11 of time for re/erring the dispuJe to arbltration-"Unduc hard.ihip'', ij co11ld. be giYen a liberal interpretation. A B ' : The respondent, a common carrier of i:oods, had taken out three transit . Policies of insurance renewable every year from the appellant. The freight policy taken out in January 1969, wa5 against risk of Jos,, or damaie to any goods or merchandise during transit. In June 1971, the respondent declared tg the appellant that it had received for transit a consignment of 185 packages C of general merchandise alleged to be of the total value of Rs. 1,10,000/- ( approx) for transportation from Otlcutta to various places in Assam and Tripura and paid the requisite premium on the value of goods and the goods stood insured under the said PQ!icy. Ac.cording to the respondent on the even- ing of 29-6-71, the consi'gnment of 18~ packa!!fl was loaded in Trudi: No. WGH-8261, and the truck left Calcutta on the same day for Gauhati. It is alleged that th<e owner of the truck reached Barasat on the night of 29tli June, 1971, there was a robbery and neither the truck, nor the driver, nor the mercban. I) dise could be traced. On 1-7-1971, the responde:nt sent letters to the officer-in- charge of Joraj)agan Poli.Ce Station. the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Inteli- 1;ence · Branch, tall Bazar. Calcutta and the Deputy Commissioner of Police Intelligence Branch intimating them that the truck, the driver, the assistant and· the mercl\andise could not be traced. A copy of the Jetter sent to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Lall Bazar, Calcutta was sent to the appel- lant and it was received by· the appellant on 2-7 -1971. On 1-7-1971 and , 21-9-1971; the respcindent lodged the claim for loss_ with the appellant on the· Uasit that the.loss was covered by the policy. On 3-7-1971, the appeJla.nt sent, E <ir- letter to th¢ respondent calling. upon the respondent to furnish toe particu.' i.rs .. as regards the -.name and. addre!S of ·the owner of the vehicle, the name · anci.actdreM of the driver <Wd other.,partkulars. On 21-9-1971 the respondeilf iiifdr.llied the appellant by a· Jetter that the_ information and the record:1 asked . fi!f ~in 'the letter dated. 3-7-1971 were alreacty supplied to Mr. A. L. Chopra,' the Gg~bt of the appeJl,ant· on 5-7-1971 wheri re called upon the respondent: for tbat purw8e . ., On ,10-10-1971. the appellant wrote to. the .respon.clent in-, forming that until th<; report of the investigation by the police was produced; F oy the respondent, it would not be possible for th'e appellant to _ pro• · ccetl further in the matter. The appellant received a copy· of the investi,!!a- · ''!ton i'ep!Jrt' by the police at 'Barasat on 12-5-1972. The report wa, to the effect that the alleged ·episode of robbery wa' fai!C. On this basis, the: appel- . l;mt sent to tk ri:spondent. a letter dated 4-8-1972 stating llie contents of the investigation_ rcPQrt of the po)ice ·at Barasat asking for the. investigatior1 repcrt ·of Jarabagati Police· Lall Bazar Pglice. Thereafter the appellant intimated · 1he ,respondent by letter dated 16-2-1913 disclaiming its liability under the ,.f.reight· policy as regards the 1055 of the consignment of 185 packag1~s. On G receipt of the: letter, the respondent wrote to the appellant on 30-3· 73 asking for tt,e ground on which the appellant disclaimed its liability. The appel- :-la.nJ -sent a letter after two month~ on May 30. 1973, stating that it had 11othing to add to what had been stated in its Jetter dated February 16, 1973. Thereafter, the respondent took the advice of solicitors and coumel. On 17-8-1973, th<; tespondent filed the application before the High Court under s. 37(4) of tbe Act for extension of time for referring the dispute to arbitra- tion till a date 15 days after the order of the High Court. Jn the application the respondent stated the reasons for the delay in filing the application in court H after receivin1t the Jetter dated May 30, 1973. Jn answer to the application, the appellant contended that s. 37(4) of the Act had no application that the C0urt had no, jurisdictlon to e:<!end the time and that even if the court had j l I \ .A B D E I STERLING INS
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.