Jammu and Kashmir Court March 1992 Judgments

New India Assurance Co. Vs. Hurmat Begum and ors.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: II(1994)ACC247,1993ACJ1281

B.A. Khan, J.1. What is the extent of Insurance Company's liability in a case where it fails to plead limited liability, but places on record the original, Insurance Policy indicating the limit of its liability. Can the Company be burdened with liability in excess of the limit contained in the policy. In other word? should the liability of Company be treated as unlimited merely because it had failed to take the plea of limited liability in its written-statement? This interesting question falls for determination in this appeal.2. The controversy arises out of a claim petition filed by claimants of one Molvi Abdul Ghani, who was killed in a road accidental Pul Doda of Aug. 7, 1980. In reply to the claim petition, appellant company did not plead limited liability in its written-statement. It, however, placed on record original Insurance Policy which indicated that its liability was limited to Rs. 50,000/-. MACT, Jammu awarded a compensation of Rs. 92,000/ - to the claimants and fastened t...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Savitri Devi and ors.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: 1992ACJ1045

B.A. Khan, J. 1. The extent of appellant insurance company's liability is the bone of contention in this appeal. Is it Rs. 15,000/- or Rs. 75,000/- is the question? M.A.C.T., Kathua, has fixed it at Rs. 75,000/- and that is why this appeal.2. Facts lie in a brief compass. One Romesh Chander, an employee in the J.K.S.R.T.C, was killed while travelling in bus No. JKQ 627 along with a barat party on August 10,1982. His legal representatives filed the claim petition and the appellant company resisted it on the ground mat its liability was limited to Rs. 15,000/- as prescribed by law. The Tribunal rejected the contention and relying on (2) 1989 ACC 459 and United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anto-netta D'Souza 1987 ACJ 828 (Bombay), held as under:Mr. Ravi Gupta appearing for the insurer has argued that the liability of the insurer is limited only upto Rs. 15,000/- and to support this he has referred to Christian Welfare Centre v. Sebastian 1988 ACJ 1058 (Kerala) and (2) 1987 ACC 262.However,...

National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pawan Kumar and ors.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: 1994ACJ309

B.A. Khan, J. 1. Respondent Pawan Kumar, a Second Year T.D.C. student at M.M. College, Jammu, sustained serious injuries after being hit by bus No. JKN 9581 near Bari Brahmana on 1.9.1981. He filed a claim petition and M.A.C.T., Jammu, awarded a compensation of Rs. 56,000/- to him along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum. Out of this an amount of Rs. 50,000/- was made payable by appellant insurance company. Appellant is aggrieved of this and pleads that its liability was limited to only Rs. 5,000/-. Therefore, the extent of company's liability is the sole question which requires determination in this appeal.2. While fastening a liability of Rs. 50,000/- on the company, Tribunal has gone by relevant clause of insurance policy under heading IMT 13 and has held as under:In the present case, the insurer's contract specifically speaks that insurer's liability per passenger shall be Rs. 50,000/-. As this liability is under the contract itself, there is no question of holding ...

Balbir Singh Vs. State

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: 1994CriLJ1079

M.L. Koul, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant Balbir Singh (hereinafter referred to as the accused) against his conviction for the commission of murder of his wife Smt. Rajinder Kour and sentence of death awarded to him by the learned Sessions Judge, Poonch, by his order dated 17-4-1990.2. The prosecution case which owes its origin to the dying declaration of the deceased Smt. Rajinder Kour, shortly relates that the deceased Rajinder Kour was married to the accused Balbir Singh and one boy and a girl had born out of this wedlock, who are alive. Her sister Smt. Gurjeet Kour got married to her borther-in-law Darshan Singh (Younger brother of the accused) on the date of occurrence and this marriage had taken place at the instance of her husband. Some days earlier to the eventful day, her husband was declaring that he would not allow this marriage to take place. When the marriage party returned home at 10 a.m. on 7-10-1987 her husband got infuriated and he had not also formed...

Punjab and Sind Bank Vs. Pradeep Kumar Kapoor and anr.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

ORDER1. In a suit filed under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. for the recovery of Rs. 8,541.90 the plaintiff-petitioner prayed for the production of some cheques and specimen signatures card allegedly issued and signed by defendant No. 1. The application was rejected vide the order impugned herein mainly on the ground that as the plaintiff has failed to show any good ground for the non-production of documents at the earlier stage the prayer could not be allowed. It is submitted that the Court below has not exercised the jurisdiction properly requiring interference by this Court.2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.3. Order XIII, Rule 1, C.P.C. provides that the parties or their pleaders shall produce at the first hearing of the suit, all the documentary evidence of every description in their possession or power, on which they intend to rely. Rule 2 of Order XIII, however, provides that no documentary evidence in possession or power of any party which should have ...

Union of India (Uoi) Vs. Swarn Singh and ors.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: 1993ACJ584

B.A. Khan, J. 1. Has Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jammu wrongly rejected appellant's application for condonation of delay in filing the claim petition? This is the only question that falls for determination in this appeal. 2. A Military vehicle was damaged in an accident as a result of collision with a Civil Truck on December 28, 1986. Appellant went through its own procedural exercise for claiming compensation and at one stage referred the matter to Senior Standing Counsel, Mr. D. P. Gupta, who advised that claim petition would not lie before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Not satisfied with this, the matter was placed before Additional Counsel who gave the green signal on Oct. 15, 1987. But despite this claim petition was filed on Dec. 23, 1987. 3. Tribunal has considered this delay as fatal and has held the petition time barred. Appellant feels that it was not justified in doing so. That in short is the controversy. 4. Mr. Bhargava contends that liberal construction is require...

Anant Singh and ors. Vs. Nanak Singh

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

B.A. Khan, J.1. Appellants are aggrieved of judgment/order dated July 29, 1988 passed by learned 2nd Addl. District Judge, Jammu, setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree passed by Civil Subordinate Judge (Municipal Magistrate). Jammu in their favour. The first appellate Court had been moved by respondent (Nanak Singh), who was not a party-defendant in the suit before trial Court. The short controversy, therefore, is whether respondent who was not a party-defendant in the suit could maintain the appeal against the ex parte judgment and decree passed in favour of the appellants.2. Appellants had filed a suit seeking declaration that land covered under Khewat No. 12 (Khata Nos. 122 to 124) in village Chak-Ratnu Tehsil Jammu was their exclusive property land and was not an evacuee property and that their order dated May 8, 1986 passed by Provincial Rehabilitation Officer, Jammu resuming the land from them and allotting it to respondent lacked in jurisdiction.3. The total burden of M...

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Shamsher Singh and ors.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

Reported in: 1994ACJ366

B.A. Khan, J. 1. Appellant company seeks setting aside of judgment/award dated 31.1.1990, passed by M.A.C.T., Jammu, awarding compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/-along with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum to respondent Nos. 1 to 3.2. The ground taken is that Tribunal had wrongly determined the liability of the appellant company as unlimited, when the same was limited to Rs. 50,000/- as per the terms of insurance policy. It is also pointed that the Tribunal had miscalculated the compensation amount casting an additional liability of Rs. 10,000/- on the company.3. The short controversy requiring determination is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case liability of the insurance company could be said to be unlimited or limited to Rs. 50,000/-, as claimed. It is well settled that liability of the insurance company must be held to be unlimited, unless specific plea is taken by the company in defence that its liability is limited and that there is the policy of insurance o...

Harbans Lal and ors. Vs. Charanjit Singh and ors.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

ORDERB.A. Khan, J.1. Petitioners are seeking setting aside of ex parte decree passed against them on the ground that trial Court had committed procedural violation of provisions of Order 5, Rules 2 and 17 of C.P.C. The question that falls for determination is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Court below has committed an irregularity or illegality and can the decree be set aside as petitioners had not been duly served.2. Petitioners were defendants in a suit brought against them by respondent No. 1. The suit was for restraining them from interfering in the possession and use of plot measuring 6 marlas comprising Khasra No. 422, situate at Shakti Nagar, Jammu. Summons were issued to them. In case of petitioner No. 1 it was affixed on the walls of his house and in case of petitioners 2 and 3 it was tendered to them by process-server which they refused to acknowledge.3. Petitioners approached trial Court on November 1, 1988 praying for setting aside of the ex parte decre...

Sham Lal Vs. Rajinder Kumar Modi and ors.

Court: Jammu and Kashmir

ORDER1. Is plaintiff (respondent No. 1) precluded from bringing a second suit in view of the bar created by Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure after his first suit was dismissed in default purportedly in exercise of jurisdiction under Order 9, Rule 8, CPC? This is the all important question requiring determination in this revision petition, which is directed against the order of learned Sub-Judge, Rajoun passed on August 22, 1989 holding the second suit maintainable on the ground of a different cause of action.2. From the record it transpires that respondent No. 1 instituted his first suit on April 30, 1986 seeking declaration that gift-deed executed in favour of petitioner-defendant in respect of land measuring 375 sq. ft. situate at Rajouri is null and void. This suit was dismissed for non-appearance of plaintiff on August 30, 1986. He filed several applications to have the suit restored, but failed. Thereafter, he instituted a second suit on February 13,1988. Petitioner-...