Claim of moneys covered by the insurance policies– The policies were owned by the plaintiffs and the premiums were paid out of their accounts, and thus the plaintiffs being the beneficiaries of the policies are legally entitled to claim the moneys covered by the policies under section 46 of the Insurance Act. None of the points raised is merited one. These appeals are, dismissed without any order as to costs. …Janata Insurance Company Ltd. =VS= M/s. Islam Steel Mills Ltd., (Civil), 2020 (1) [8 LM (AD) 298] ....View Full Judgment

Right of the principal to sue for recovery of money under insurance policy opened by its agent—
In the instant case the respondent as principal instituted the suit for recovery of the money covered by the insurance policy opened by the Bank of the plaintiff-respondent as its agent. The appellant Janata Insurance Company raised objection that the suit so instituted is not maintainable as the same has not been instituted by the Bank. The Appellate Division held the suit for recovery of the claim may be instituted either by the principal or by the agent and as such the suit as instituted is held perfectly maintainable. Janata Insurance Company Ltd Vs. M/S Islam Steel Mills Ltd and another 15 MLR (2010) (AD) 478.

The policies were owned by the plaintiffs and the premiums were paid out of their accounts, and thus the plaintiffs being the beneficiaries of the policies are legally entitled to claim the moneys covered by the policies under section 46 of the Insurance Act.
Janata Insurance Company Ltd. -Vs.- M/s. Islam Steel Mills Ltd. (Surendra Kumar Sinha J) 6 ALR (AD) 2015 (2)38

Plaintiff-appellant is entitled to the statutory interest under the law and the Court has no discretion in the matter. [Para- 19] Chalna Marine Products Ltd. Vs. Reliance Insurance Ltd. 6 BLT (AD)-234

read with
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908(V of 1908)
Section—34
Section 47B of the Insurance Act, 1938 as amended by ordinance XXV of 1970 provides for granting of interest on claims. This provision in fact, displaces the discretion of the court conferred by section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the matter of granting interest. Hence, the plaintiff-appellant is entitled to the statutory interest under section 47B of the Insurance Act. The court has no discretion in the matter. Chalna Marine Products Ltd.; represented by its Managing Director Vs. Reliance Insurance Ltd.; represented by its Managing Director and ors, 18 BLD(AD)69

The Insurance Act, 1938
Section 47B
Code of Civil procedure, 1908
Section 34
In "The Insurance Act, 1938" there has been an amendment by Ordinance No.XXV in 1970 wherein Section 47B has been incorporated which allows granting of interest. This granting of interest is under the statute itself which the appellant is entitled under the law. Section 47B of the Insurance Act in fact displaces the discretion of the court conferred under section 34 of the Code of Civil procedure of granting decree for interest. As per Section 47B(1) the insurer is saddled with interest on late settlement of claim. Sub-Section 2 of Section 47B reads as follows:-
"The interest under sub-section (1) shall be payable for the period during which the failure continues and shall be calculated at monthly rates at the rate of five percent higher than the prevailing bank rate."
The plaintiff-appellant is entitled to the statutory interest under section 47B of the Insurance Act, 1938. The learned Judges failed to notice that the appellant is entitled to this statutory interest under the law and the court has no discretion in the matter. The appeal is allowed without any order as to costs and the judgment and decree of the trial court is restored. Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.236 of 1997 is dismissed. .....Chalna Marine Products Ltd. =VS= Reliance Insurance Ltd., (Civil), 2025(2) [19 LM (AD) 220] ....View Full Judgment

Claim for damage on Insurance Policy— In a suit for damage and compensation on insurance policy the plaintiff must prove the breach of the contract and his claim for compensation on account of damage. Inland and Overseas Ltd. Vs. Karnaphuli Insurance Company Ltd. and others. 1, MLR (1996) (AD) 442.

The Law of Insurance- Standard Fire Policy-Condition No. 19—
The words "pending action" have been understood in this sub-continent for over 80 years as pending suit and there is no jurisprudential backing, no unfurling of a novel proposition of law and no impelling consideration of justice and fairplay to disturb that understanding. Sadharon Bima Corporation Vs. Sanjib Kumar Das & others. 1, MLR (1996) (AD) 179.