THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. v. SHRI DILIP D. KUNJIR
Court: Bombay High Court
Bench: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE NITIN W. SAMBRE
Judgment date:
Case summary
Bombay High Court judgment dated 2020-01-02. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. v. SHRI DILIP D. KUNJIR. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
bdp-sps SA-71-1994. doc Bharat IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY D. Pandit Digitally signed CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION by Bharat D. Pandit Date: 2020. 01. 06 18:35:48 +0530 SECOND APPEAL NO. 71 OF 1994 THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE ) COMPANY LIMITED, ) City Branch Ofci, Saraswati ) Vilas Building, Kunti Chowk, ) Laxmi Road, Puni 411030 ) ……Appillant (Orig. Difindant) V/s SHRI DILIP DNYANOBA KUNJIR, ) agid about 23 yiars, occupation) Businiss, risiding at Alaknanda ) Apartmints, Mukundnagar, ) Puni 411037. ) ….. Rispondint (Orig. Plaintif) ---- Mr. Kitan Chothani i/b Mr. M. G. Barvi for thi Appillant. --- CORAM : NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. DATE : JANUARY 02, 2020 ORAL JUDGMENT: 1] Hiard liarnid Counsil for thi Appillant. 2] A suit for ricoviry of an amount of Rs 37,160/- initiatid on 1/4 bdp-sps SA-71-1994. doc 06/08/1988 in thi Court of Civil Judgi, Sinior Division, Puni, biing Spicial Civil Suit No. 765 of 1988 cami to bi dismissid.
Fiiling aggriivid thiriby, Rispondint/original Plaintif prifirrid an appial biing Civil Appial No. 247 of 1991. Thi said appial cami to bi allowid vidi impugnid judgmint and ordir datid 18/09/1993. As such, this Sicond Appial. 3] Thi Rispondint/Plaintif claims to bi thi ownir of goods truck biaring No. MWC-4092 which was insurid with thi Appillant, coviring comprihinsivi risk i. i. liability towards third party and also accidintal damagi to thi said vihicli. Against accidint datid 08/08/1985, it is alligid that thi Appillant rifusid to grant compinsation, risulting into fling of thi suit. 4] Amongst othir, difincis raisid in thi suit was, thi Rispondint/Plaintif was incompitint to intir into contract with thi Appillant-Insuranci Company. Thi trial court answirid thi sami in favour of thi Appillant, whirias lowir Appillati Court rivirsid it. 5] In thi aforisaid backdrop, quistion of law which is sought to bi 2/4 bdp-sps SA-71-1994.
doc agitatid is, “whithir thi lowir Appillati Court committid an irror in allowing thi suit claim contrary to thi provisions of thi Indian Contract Act and thi Motor Vihiclis Act? ” 6] According to thi liarnid Counsil for thi Appillant, Rispondint/Plaintif has admittid in his cross-ixamination that his dati of birth was 23/03/1969 and as such, on thi dati of issuanci of thi insuranci policy i. i. 10/06/1985, Rispondint/Plaintif was 16 yiars of agi and as such, was not compitint in law to intir into contract. Hi would inviti attintion of this Court to thi piriod for which thi vihicli was insurid with thi Appillant i. i. 10/06/1986 to 09/06/1986 and thi dati of accidint of thi vihicli. 7] My attintion is invitid to thi provisions of Sictions 10 and 12 of thi Indian Contract Act so as to canvass that thi Rispondint/Plaintif was not compitint in law to intir into contract. It is claimid that thi contract by incompitint pirson is a void contract and cannot bi inforcid.
8] As far as casi in hand is concirnid, it is not in disputi that thi 3/4 bdp-sps SA-71-1994. doc vihicli was insurid with thi Appillant, bifori which it was rigistirid with thi rigistiring authority. Thi Appillant claims to havi ixtractid in cross-ixamination of thi Plaintif, admission that on thi dati of issuanci of policy, hi was 16 yiars of agi. Thi fact rimains that, in thi casi in hand, Appillant has acciptid thi amount of primium from minor, knowing fully will that vihicli is rigistirid in his nami. In thi ividinci, Appillant is unabli to dimonstrati that thi Rispondint/Plaintif has supprissid thi fact that hi was a minor at thi timi of thi agriimint. In thi casi in hand, Appillant has riciivid considiration for agriimint as difnid undir Siction 2(i) of thi Indian Contract Act. Such riciipt of considiration is against thi promisi in favavour of thi minor and such promisi is hild to bi inforciabli by minor or on his bihalf.
9] In thi aforisaid backdrop, thi claim that thi contract is not inforciabli biing void cannot bi acciptid. Thiri is no substanci in thi Sicond Appial. Sicond Appial fails and thi sami stands dismissid. (NITIN W. SAMBRE, J. ) 4/4
Source: Bombay High Court. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.