Judgment

DESAI, J.:- Plaintiff whose car was destroyed in fire way back in July, 1953 and claimed a paltry sum of Rs. 7,000/- from the respondent (Insurance Company for short) is knocking at the doors of Courts of Justice since last three decades and mirage of justice is still eluding him, and in his chase presumably he must have spent double the amount-than prayed for in the plaint because this is the second round when the matter has reached the apex Court.

2. Plaintiff, who is the appellant was the owner of Austin 16 H. P. Motor Car, which he had insured with the original first defendant Vanguard Fire and General Insurance Company Ltd. (Insurer for short) in respect of accident, loss or damage. The period covered by the policy of insurance Ext. P-1 dated March 4, 1952 was from March 1, 1952 to February 28, 1953. This car suffered damage in an accident which occurred on December 21, 1952. The car was taken to car repairing workshop of P. S. N. Motors Ltd., Trichur and left there and an intimation of the accident was sent to the Insurer requesting it to discharge its obligation under the policy of insurance. The repairer to whom the car was handed over prepared an estimate of the repair charges in the amount of Rs. 2010/- and forwarded the same to the Insurer. After some protracted correspondence, the Insurer accepted the estimate of repair charges in the amount of Rs. 1910/- and the Insurer by its letter dated Ext. P-13 dated March 25, 1953 wrote to the plaintiff and the repairer as under :

"We have pleasure to inform you that the revised estimate of M/s. P. S. N. Motors Ltd., Trichur has been approved by our head office, and they have been advised to proceed with the repairs and send us their final bill together with the discharge voucher duly filled in and signed by you for making the payment.

Assuring you of our best services always." Since the date of the accident the car was in the custody of the repairer for the purpose of repairs. On July 10, 1953, a fire occurred in the workshop of the repairer in which the Motor Car of the plaintiff was destroyed. The plaintiff called upon the Insurer to idemnify him for the loss as per the terms of the policy of insurance alleging that the Motor Car was in the possession and custody M/s. P. S. N. Motors Ltd. on behalf of the Insurer and was being repaired, at the sole responsibility, of the Insurer under its instruction and since the Insurer had entrusted the Motor Car for repairs to a workshop in which several automobiles with inflammable materials like Oil, petrol, tyres etc. were lying without ascertaining whether the workshop was insured against fire and other risks, the Insurer was liable to make good the loss. The plaintiff claimed the value of the Motor Car on the footing that the respondent-company was a bailee of the Motor Car and bad failed to take such care thereof as a person of ordinary prudence would under similar circumstances take of his property of the same quality and value as the Motor Car bailed. This last submission alleging a contract of bailment is seriously disputed by the respondent-insurance company.

3. The Insurer contested the claim, inter alia, contending that the suit is not maintainable in view of Condition No. 7 of the policy of insurance an aspect of the matter which is concluded against the respondent-company and, therefore, it is not necessary to set out in extenso the contention under this head. The contract of bailment was seriously disputed and it was submitted that the car was handed over to the workshop by the plaintiffs son and the insurance company had only agreed to reimburse the loss and the workship owner was not the agent of the Insurer nor was the insurance company a bailee ; nor could it be said that the agent of the bailee was in possession of the car.

4. The trial Court held that the Motor Car was entrusted to the repairer for and on behalf of the Insurer and the insurance company was liable for the loss of the Motor Car as it was in posse