·Jn Ju~ne 197L the respondent declared to the appdlant that it had n:ccived for transit a consignment of 185 packages of general merchan· dise alleged to be of the total value of Rs. 1,10,000 lapprox) for transportation from Calcutta to various plac.:cs in Assam and T ripura and paid the requisite premium on the value of goods and the goods stood insured under the said policy. According to the respondent, on the evening of 29-6-71, the consignment of 185 packages was loaded in Truck No. WGH-8261, and the truck left Calcutta on the amc day for Gauhati. It is alleged that the owner of the truck infor:1 edl the respondent that after the truck reacb.:::d Barasat on the night of 29th June, 1971, there was a robbery and neither the truck, nor the driver, nor the merchandise could be traced. On 1-7-1971, the respondent sent letters to the officer-inch?rge of Jarabagan Police Statir •n, the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Intelligence Branch, Lall Bazar Calcutta and the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Intelligence Branch intimating them that the truck which left Calcutta on 29th June 11971 had not reached Beniagram at the scheduled time and that the truck, the driver, the assistant and the merchandise could not be traced. A copy of the letter sent to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Lall Bazar, Calcutta was sent to. the appellant and it was received by Lle appellant on 2-7-1971. On 1-7-1971 and 21-9-1971, the respondent lodged! the claim for loss with the appellant on the basis that the loss was covered by the policy. On 3-7-1971, the appellant sent a letter to their respondent calling upon the respondent to furnish the particulars as regards the name and address of the owner of the vehicle, the name and address · of the driver and other particulars. On 21-9-1971, the responden'l informed the appellant by a Jetter. that the information and the records asked for in the letter dated 3-7-1971 were already supplied to Mr. A. L. Chopra, the agent of the appellant on 5-7-1971, when he ciled upon the: respondcni for that purpose. On 10-10-1971, the appellant wrote to the respondent informing that until the report of the investigation by the police was produced by the respondent, it would not be possible for the appellant to proceed further in the matter. The appellant received a copy of the investigation report by the police at Barasat on 12-5-1972. The report was to the effect that the alleged episode of robbery was false. On this basis, the appdlant sent to the respondent a Jetter dated 4•8-1972 stating the contents of the investigation report of the police at Barasat asking for the investigation report of Jarabagan
