SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1989 Supreme(Pat) 100

PATNA HIGH COURT
S.H.S.Abidi, J.
National Insurance Company Limited
Versus
Narendra Kumar Jhanjhri
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 879 of 1984 ;
Decided On : MARCH 17, 1989

Headnote:Code of Criminal Procedure - S 182 - Complaint against Managing Director and Officer of Insurance Company for prosecution u/s 406, 420 and 120B I.P.C. on refusal to pay claim for damages caused by natural calamity-Pendency of Civil Suit between parties-Complaint cannot be quashed on the ground of pendency of civil suit if an offence is prime facie made out and at the initial stage-Court is to see whether there are materials to proceed and not to judges the merit of the case. (Paras 8, 9, & 12)

       Insurance Act Section 107-The question whether the particular act is done by a public servant in the discharge of his official duty is substantially one of fact to be determined in the circumstances of each case. (Para 12)

       

Judgment

S.H.S.Abidi, J.

1. The National Insurance Company Limited and its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Manager, Assistant General Manager Complaint Cell; Senior Divisional Manager; Branch Manager and Assistant Administrative Officer have filed this application under Sec. 482, Cr. P.C. for quashing the impugned order, dated 13-1-1984 taking cognizance of the offences under Secs. 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code on the basis of a Complaint No. 172 of 1983 filed by Narendra Kumar Jhanjhri, complainant-opposite-party.

2. The complainant-opposite-party has said in the said complaint that he is the proprietor of M/s. Premier Glass Industries, Jhumritilaiya, (in short. the Industries), that on 5-10-1981 the Industries was insured on payment of Rs. 6,900.00 for one year under Comprehensive Policy No. 456/ P/3 101278/ 81 and 7501188 by the National Insurance Company Ltd. against all kinds of Natural calamities theft and burglary and the policy was issued for ten lakhs, that the proprietor was induced by the accused No.7 (petitioner No. 8) namely K.K. Choudhury Assistant Administrative Officer who was the then Branch Manager of the National Insurance Company at Jhumritilaiya. This K.K. Choudhury, the then Branch Manager of the National Insurance Company by giving false assurance asked the proprietor of the Industries to pay Rs. 6,900.00 for such policy as a premium for a period of one year on which the proprietor of the Industries got his Industries insured with the said Insurance Company and delivered a cheque No. 357751, dated 5-10-1981 drawn on the State Bank of India, Jhumritilaiya Branch for Rs. 6,900.00 . During the relevant period the Industries was under mortgage with the State Bank of India, Jhumritilaiya, on account of loan advanced to its proprietor for the development of the Industries. On payment of Rs. 6,900.00 as per annum premium at the time of getting the Industries insured the Insurance Company granted a receipt No. 1336052 dated 10-1-1981. On 25-3-1982 the insured premises were badly damaged resulting in almost closure of the entire Industries because of lightning sequell followed by cyclonic storm which was natural calamity beyond the human control. This matter was immediately reported to the police who made proper investigation into the matter. The incident was immediately reported to the Insurance authorities concerned and proper claim was made for Rs. 6,64,548 (i.e., actual loss after deduction of salvage value), the loss sustained by the said Industries on which the Insurance Company appointed a surveyor who surveyed and verified the loss and damages sustained due to above-mentioned calamities. Because the proprietor was facing financial crisis therefore he invited partners for the said Industries and on his requests I Naren$1ra Kumar Jhanjhri, complainant-opposite-party and Manmal Jhanjhri became the partners to run the firm and this fact was brought to the knowledge of the authorities including Mr. A.K. Gupta, Investigator, Calcutta. Several reminders were issued to the authorities i.e., the accused persons to settle the claim and also oral requests were made to all the accused persons to make good the loss as promised and assured by them which is covered under the policy referred to above. The accused persons who has dishonest intention to cheat the proprietor and his partners did not pay any heed to the requests and reminders sent to them. Ultimately the complainant being a. managing partner of the said Industries instructed his lawyer to give a pleaders notice to the accused persons. When the notices were served upon the accused persons, the Divisional Manager, Patna, sent a reply to the complainant by his letter dated 12-10-1983 and refused to pay the claimed amount of the complainant. On receipt of this letter the complainant-opposite-party along with witness No.2 went to the superior authority (accused No.3) to know the actual position and circumstances under which the reply was given to him,





































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top