( 1 ) THE suit of the plaintiff-appellant was for the recovery of Rs. 16,000/- from the defendant insurance Company (hereinafter referred to as 'the Company'), which, he alleged, became due to him on the comprehensive policy of his motor vehicle insurance when it suffered an accident at Morena on or about 8-11-1947. In the equivalent Citation: alternative, he claimed that the dispute may be referred to arbitration, in terms of the policy of insurance, through the intervention of the Court as the respondent company had declined to have it so referred.

( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiff was that he was the owner of his Studebaker commander Land Cruiser Sedanbody car, bearing registered No. G. S. 2190 L, which was insured for Rs. 16,000/- with the defendant Company under a comprehensive policy of insurance (policy No. 6039, dated 23-9-1947) for the period 1-10-1947 to 30-9-1943. On 8-11-1947, he had gone to Morena along with shri M. L. Gupta, Advocate. The motor-car was being driven by a licensed driver, matapurkar. There, at about 5 p. m. , a young boy v/as unfortunately knocked down by the motorcar on the main road in front of the District Court. The injured boy was removed to the house of the nearest medical practitioner immediately after the accident; but, in spite of all possible medical aid that was given to him, he did not survive for long. Getting the news of the death of the boy, a crowd of about 100 to 200 persons, which included the relations of the boy and their sympathisers, gathered round the motor-car and, without waiting to enquire whether the driver was at fault, began to throw stones at it. The plaintiff was removed from the scene of occurrence under police protection, and subsequently the motor-car was found so extensively burnt and damaged as to be beyond repairs. According to the plaintiff, the motor-car was damaged and burnt by the relatives and sympathisers of the deceased boy on account of private revenge and that he was entitled to compensation from the Company under his policy of insurance. It was further alleged that, under the terms of the policy, the question of the defendant's responsibility ought to have been referred to arbitration but the defendant unreasonably did not agree to it. It was, therefore, prayed that a decree for Rs. 16,000/-, the value of the motor-car, be passed against the defendant company; or, in the alternative, the matter in dispute be referred to arbitration as per Clause 7 of the policy of insurance through the intervention of the Court.

( 3 ) THE defendant, in its written statement, inter alia, contended that as the accident, loss, damage or liability in question, directly or indirectly, proximately or remotely, was occasioned by, or arose out of, or in connection with, a 'riot' or a 'civil commotion', the risk of the company was expressly excepted under the terms of the policy of insurance; that under Clause 7 of the policy of insurance, as the dispute was not referred to arbitration Within twelve calendar months from the date of the defendant's disclaimer of its liability, the claim of the plaintiff was deemed to have been abandoned and he was not en-titled to claim any damages under his policy of insurance.

( 4 ) THE trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff, inter alia, holding (a) that the plaintiff's motor-car was burnt down as a result of a 'riot' and 'civil commotion', and as such, according to the terms of the policy of insurance, the defendant Company was not liable; and equivalent Citation: (b) that Clause 7 of the policy of insurance did not debar or disentitle the plaintiff from filing the suit.

( 5 ) THE most important issue in this case is, whether the liability of the defendant company for damages is excepted in cases where loss or damage is the result of, or occasioned by a 'riot' or a 'civil commotion'. For, if it is so excepted, the defendant Company would not be liable and the other questions raised would not necessarily arise for consideration.

( 6 ) T

Click Here to Read the rest of this document