ORAL JUDGMENT

1. On 24.2.2004, while admitting present second appeal on the following substantial questions of law, this Court has also passed order in CA No.965 of 2002, which reads as under:-

“Second Appeal NO.10 of 2002 Heard Mr.A.K.Clerk, learned advocate for the appellant.

2. In this second appeal, following substantial questions of law are involved:

(I) Whether both the courts below have erred in holding that the agent, who filled in the proposal form for the assured acting as the agent of the appellant Corporation and not as the agent of the insured?

(II) Whether both the courts below have erred in holding the appellant Corporation liable under the contract of insurance, when the contract of insurance is contract uberrima fides and the assured having furnished false information as regards his age on the date of the proposal?

(iii) Whether the plaintiff can take advantage of the incorrect information furnished in the proposal by the deceased insured? Appeal is admitted.

CIVIL APPLICATION NO.965 OF 2002.

1. Heard Mr.A.K.Clerk, learned advocate for the applicant.

THE HIGH COURT

2. Rule, returnable on 16/3/2004.

3. Mr.M.P.Prajapati, learned advocate appears for the opponents respondents an