ARGUMENT 1: THE INSURER WAS NOT A BAILEE OF THE MOTOR CAR

 As per the conditions of the contract of insurance, the insurer undertakes to indemnify the
insured against loss or damage to the motor car by accidental external means.

 The insurer also has the option to repair, reinstate or replace the motor car or part thereof
and/or its accessories, or pay in cash the amount of loss or damage.

 The insurer's liability is limited to the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance, and it
does not imply that the insurer has become a bailee of the motor car.

 The fact that the insurer had approved the repair estimate and instructed the repairer to
proceed with repairs does not make the insurer a bailee of the motor car.

 The repairer was acting as an agent of the insured and not as an agent of the insurer, and the
insurer did not have control or possession of the motor car at any point in time.

ARGUMENT 2: THE REPAIRER WAS NOT A SUB-BAILEE ON BEHALF OF THE

INSURER

 The repairer was engaged by the insured to repair the motor car and was acting as an agent of
the insured.

 The fact that the insurer approved the repair estimate and instructed the repairer to proceed
with repairs does not make the repairer a sub-bailee on behalf of the insurer.

 The repairer did not have control or possession of the motor car on behalf of the insurer, and
the insurer did not have any contractual relationship with the repairer.

 The repairer was not entrusted with the care of the motor car on behalf of the insurer, and
therefore cannot be considered a sub-bailee on behalf of the insurer.

ARGUMENT 3: THE INSURER IS NOT LIABLE FOR THE LOSS OF THE MOTOR
CAR

 The contract of insurance only covers loss or damage to the motor car by accidental external
means and does not cover loss or damage due to fire.

 The fire that destroyed the motor car was not due to accidental external means but was caused
by an internal event within the repairer's workshop.
 The insurer is not responsible for ensuring that the repairer's workshop is insured against fire
and other risks, and the insured cannot hold the insurer liable for any loss or damage due to
fire.

 The insured had also failed to take proper precautions to prevent further damage or loss to the
motor car, as required by the conditions of the contract of insurance. Therefore, any extension
of the damage or any further damage to the motor car is entirely at the insured's own risk.

REFERENCE TO N R SRINIVASA IYER VS NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

CASE:

 In the N R Srinivasa Iyer vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. case, the court held that the
insurer cannot be considered a bailee of the vehicle merely because it had approved the repair
estimate and instructed the repairer to proceed with repairs.

 The court also held that the repairer was not a sub-bailee on behalf of the insurer as the
repairer was engaged by the insured and was acting as an agent of the insured.

 Therefore, the court held that the insurer was not liable for the loss of the vehicle as the loss
was not covered under the terms and conditions of the contract of insurance.

Based on the above arguments and the reference to the N R Srinivasa Iyer vs New India
Assurance Co. Ltd. case, it can be concluded that the insurer cannot be considered a bailee of
the motor car, and the repairer cannot be considered a sub-bailee on behalf of the insurer.
Moreover, the insurer is not liable for the loss of the motor car due to the fire as it was not

RELEVANT CASE LAWS

1. In National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Indira Srivastava (2009), the Supreme Court of India
held that the obligation of the insurer to indemnify the insured arises only when the loss or
damage to the insured property is caused due to an accidental external means. In the present
case, the loss of the motor car occurred due to a fire, which is not covered under the policy of
insurance. Therefore, the insurer cannot be held liable to indemnify the loss of the motor car.

2. In Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Vijay Kumar Jain (2007), the Supreme Court of India held
that the insurer is not liable to indemnify the loss of the insured property if the loss occurs
while the insured property is in the custody of a third party, who is not authorized by the
insurer. In the present case, the repairing company was not authorized by the insurer to keep
the motor car in its custody after the repairs were completed. Therefore, the insurer cannot be
 held liable to indemnify the loss of the motor car that occurred due to fire while it was in the
custody of the repairing company.

3. In New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nusli Neville Wadia (2008), the Supreme Court of India
held that the insurer is not liable to indemnify the loss of the insured property if the loss
occurs due to the negligence of the insured or a third party. In the present case, the repairing
company failed to take proper precautions to prevent the loss of the motor car due to fire.
Therefore, the repairing company is liable for the loss of the motor car, and the insurer cannot
be held liable to indemnify the loss.

4. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pushpalaya Printers (2004), the Supreme Court of
India held that the insurer is not liable to indemnify the loss of the insured property if the
insured fails to comply with the conditions of the policy of insurance. In the present case, the
insured failed to comply with the condition that the insurer should be notified immediately
upon the occurrence of any accident or loss, or damage. Therefore, the insurer cannot be held
liable to indemnify the loss of the motor car.