How to ascertain limitation in suit for recovery of compensation in case of loss or injury to goods?

The period of limitation would obviously run only when a report on the loss that has occurred is obtained from an approved surveyor or loss assessor. The plaintiff can of course be non-suited on the ground of limitation if a suit for compensation is not filed within a period of three years therefrom. That does not however mean that a suit for compensation against a carrier for loss or injury of goods cannot be filed in the absence of such a report. S. 64UM(2) of the Insurance Act, 1938 has impact when the plaintiff or one of the plaintiffs is the insurer who sues on the strength of a letter of subrogation. The claim is settled and the insurer steps into the shoes of the insured on the strength of the letter of subrogation issued by the insured. It is only then can the insurer file a suit for compensation for the loss or injury of goods against the carrier as in the case on hand. The court below erred in holding that the period of limitation runs from the date of knowledge of the loss or injury of goods even for the first plaintiff. The decision in Associated Transport Corporation (P) Ltd.'s case (supra) is distinguishable since the claim therein was for a sum less than ` 20,000/-. There was no occasion therefore to consider the applicability of S. 64UM(2) of the Insurance Act, 1938 in the said decision relied on by the court below. The approved surveyor prepared the loss survey report on 29.8.1994 and the suit for compensation was filed on 25.3.1997 well within the period of three years. The period of limitation for filing a suit for compensation against a carrier for loss or injury of goods is three years when the loss or injury occurs. The suit filed by the insurer and the insured against the carrier is well in time and not barred by the law of limitation as has been erroneously held by the court below. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA

A.S. No. 770 of 1999

Decided On: 14.12.2016

United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs. Surat Goods Transport Service

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

V. Chitambaresh and Anil K. Narendran, JJ.

Citation: AIR 2017(NOC)908 kerala

Print Page

Supreme court; LIC can not modify Insurance Act by issuing circulars?

 In our considered opinion it is not open to the Appellants to charter a
course which is different to the postulation in the Insurance Act, by means of its
own Circulars. We need not go beyond mentioning the decision of this Court in
Avinder Singh v. State of Punjab (1979) 1 SCC 137 wherein it has been held
that the Legislature cannot efface itself by delegating its plenary powers unless
the delegate functions strictly under its supervision. If the delegate is allowed
to function independently it would tantamount to “usurpation of legislative
power itself.” This view came to be reiterated to decades later in Agricultural
Market Committee v. Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. (1997) 5 SCC 516. This
Court held that “....... Power to make subsidiary legislation may be entrusted by
the legislature to another body of its choice but the legislature should, before
delegating, enunciate either expressly or by implication, the policy and the
principles for the guidance of the delegates”. The position that obtains today is
diametrically opposite inasmuch as the statute permitted, at the relevant time,
the assignment and/or transfer of life insurance policies, but the delegate,
through its Circulars, has attempted to nullify that provision of law. We
conclude, therefore, that the circulars are ultra vires the Statute and must
therefore be made ineffectual.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8542 OF 2009
LIC OF INDIA 
V
INSURE POLICY PLUS SERVICES PVT. LTD. & ORS …
Dated;December 29, 2015.

Print Page