G.M. LODHA, J.—This is an appeal under Order 41, rule 1 and u/s. 96 (1), C.P.C. against the judgment and decree of the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Jaipur City. 2. The plaintiff firm insured with the defendant company one registered post parcel (Air Mail) containing precious stones to the extent of Rs 50.000/-and the goods valued at Rs 16 000/-on the terms and conditions contained in the certificate of declaration (Ex. 1). The plaintiff despatched a shipment of precious stones through General Post Office, Jaipur to the America Security and Trust Company, Rennsylvania and 15th St.- Washington D.C. for the account of M/s. Joseph M. Chatriot and Brothers, Washington D. C. (U. S. A.). This was sent through plaintiffs bankers, the Bank of Baroda, Tripolia Bazar, Jaipur. The Bank of Baroda in its turn as representative of the plaintiff sent the papers to Washington Bank in U. S. A., whose name is American Security & Trust Company. The consignment was sent on 7.6.69 by the plaintiff addressed to the American Security and Trust Company. The consignment reached there, but the dispute arose about taking delivery from the Post Office. 3. Now it is not in dispute that the fact of receipt of the consignment by the Post Office was made known to M/s. Joseph M. Chatriot & Brothers. 4. Ultimately, the delivery was not taken and the consignment was lost while it was in the Post Office. The plaintiff wanted to enforce the insurance policy and certificate notice on the defendant. 5. After framing of the issues, evidence was recorded. The suit has been dismissed on the ground that there was a clause in the insurance policy (Ex. 1) (E. F.), which reads as under:- "The policy does not cover claims for delay and/or loss of market. It also excludes the infidelity of the insureds and/or consignees own messsanger." 6. The actual detailed clause of insurance in the insurance policy may be noticed, which is as under: — "Insured against "TOTAL LOSS" only of the parcel from the time of issue of the registered receipt until that of delivery of the parcel to the consignees or their representatives and their signatures to the Post Office. Also insured against the risk of non-delivery of complete post parcel subject to institute non-delivery (insured value) clause." 7. It also excludes the infidelity of the insureds and/or consignees own messanger. 8. Also insured against the risk of non-delivery of complete post parcel subject to institute non-delivery (insured value) clause." 7. It also excludes the infidelity of the insureds and/or consignees own messanger. 8. Now, after hearing Mr. Kasliwal and Mr. Srivastava, I am of the opinion that this appeal has got no force and deserves to be dismissed. The reason is very obvious. The infidelity clause of the insurance policy is very patent. It means unfaithfulness. According to the Websters Dictionary, infidelity means, "unfaithfulness, lack of faith or belief, state or character being infidal, breach of trust, unfaithfulness to a charge, disloyality". 9. By the reading of Ex. 11 and Ex. 12, it is clear that after the consignment was received in the Post Office at Washington, both the consignee bank as well as M/s. Joseph M. Chatriot and Brothers, Washington refused to take delivery. The bank took the stand that it is none of its obligation to take delivery and the Bank would not send his representative before the customs and own the property. 10. It also appears from the correspondence on the record and the evidence produced that M/s Joseph M. Chatriot & Bros., was not prepared to take delivery. 11. Mr. Kasliwal argued that M/s. Joseph M. Chatriot & Brothers wanted to have an inspection and without inspection non-acceptance of the goods cannot be equivalent to refusal. I enquired from Mr. Kasliwal whether there is any procedure in the Post Office in U. S. A. under the law to have open delivery or for inspection of a parcel, but he could not show any such law or rule or circular. Normally, no Post Office would give open delivery by opening the consignment and permitting the consignee to inspect the goods and then make up his mind to accept or not to accept. Such a course is unknown and can only be a creation of special statute. 12. In the present case, the correspondence clearly reveals that the consignee was not inclined to take delivery. 13. Mr. Kasliwal then argued that the goods should have been kept for much more time as the insurance was for one year and the loss happened within 3-4- months only. 12. In the present case, the correspondence clearly reveals that the consignee was not inclined to take delivery. 13. Mr. Kasliwal then argued that the goods should have been kept for much more time as the insurance was for one year and the loss happened within 3-4- months only. Here again, the concept of the insurance being for one year is not equivalent or analogues to any requirements of the Post Office to maintain or keep custody of the goods for a year or so. The implication of one year, even if it is there in any policy, would be that after having an insurance policy of the goods it can be despatched within a year. It cannot create a liability on the Post Office to preserve the goods for a year. 14. Moreover, in every case, it depends upon the laws and rules of the Post Office, as such. In the instant case, it is obvious that the goods reached the Post Office in Washington, and both the consignee bank and M/s. Joseph M. Chatriot Bros, refused to take delivery. In such circumstances, the untrustworthiness and unfaithfulness is very obvious, and the infidelity is patent. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the suit of the plaintiff has been rightly dismissed. The plaintiff should have sued the consignee, the bank as well as M/s. Joseph M. Chatriot & Bros., If so advised, and not the Insurance Company. 15. It may be mentioned that if a party wants to have a comprehensive insurance in such matters, it should resort to have insurance for all the pre-contingencies from the time of consignment till delivery, and case of non-delivery till the consignment is returned back. If one pays from time to time for all this, then certainly all contingencies would be covered. Surely, the present one is not a case of that nature. 16. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed with costs.