New India Assurance

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.
Page 1 Tuesday, November 26, 2024

Printed For: Mr. Gajendra Maheshwari
SCC Online Web Edition: https://www.scconline.com
© 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd., Lucknow.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 SCC OnLine SC 1414
In the Supreme Court of India

(BEFORE ASHOK BHUSHAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.)
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others … Appellant(s);

Versus
Paresh Mohanlal Parmar … Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No. 10398/2011
Decided on February 4, 2020
ORDER
1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment of National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission dated 19.07.2011 in First Appeal No. 45/2007 by which the
First Appeal of the respondent was allowed and National Commission allowed the
complaint and directed to pay an amount of Rs. 20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs
only) to the respondent with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of repudiation till filing
of the complaint and 9% from the date of filing of compliant till the date of realization
of the entire amount.
2. The respondent obtained a burglary and house breaking Insurance Policy for the
period from 5.06.2003 to 4.06.2004 from the appellant Insurance Company to insure
his property for a total sum insured of Rs. 20 Lakhs. During the night of 11.01.2004 an
incidence of theft took place and 324 mobile phones were found to be stolen from the
godown and FIR lodged with the concerned Police Authority.
3. Insurance Company was informed and their surveyor visited and submitted his
preliminary report dated 16.1.2004. The complaint was also submitted to Insurance
ombudsman by the appellant. Vide order dated 9.12.2005 the Insurance ombudsman
rejected the representation on the ground that they have no pecuniary jurisdiction.
4. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim and reiterated its stand of
repudiation. The respondent filed a complaint before the State Commission. By order
dated 21.12.2006 the State Commission dismissed the complaint filed by the
respondent relying upon the judgment of this Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
v. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal (2004) 8 SCC 644. The first appeal was filed before the
Commission. The commission by the impugned judgment has allowed the appeal. The
Commission took a view that when the lock of the godown was found on the Street
and that the culprit was convicted under Section 454 IPC, it may be gathered that
element of force was present when the culprit entered the premises of the godown.
5. The Commission also returned the finding that relevant terms and conditions of
the Insurance Policy were not brought to the knowledge of the insurer. Aggrieved by
the judgment of the National Commission, this appeal has been filed.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant contents that the claim of the respondent was
not covered by the policy. He has referred to Clause 3A as extracted by the State
Commission and submits that there being no force entry in the premises and the
premises having been opened by duplicate key, the claim was not covered. With
regard finding of the Commission that terms and conditions were not informed to
Insured, he submits that the State Commission has held that terms and conditions
were informed but the National Commission has erroneously observed that the State
Commission has not dealt with the matter.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that in view of the fact that relevant
terms and conditions were not supplied, the claim of the respondent cannot be
rejected. The respondent submits that his case is fully covered by the judgment in
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2019) 6 SCC 212 (Bharat Watch Company thro its partner v. National Insurance
Company Ltd.). He submits that, even before the repudiation, by his letter dated
17.03.2005 the respondent has asked for copy of the terms and conditions from the
appellant.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
9. As noted above, the National Commission has returned the finding that terms
and conditions of the policy were not communicated to the appellant which finding are
contained in para 7 to the following effect:
“We have heard learned counsel for the parties. We have perused the record of
the State Commission. Before we embark upon discussion on the issue regarding
breach of the terms of the Insurance Policy, it may be mentioned that the other
contentions of the respondents were rejected by the State Commission. The
appellant also had contended before the State Commission that he was not
furnished with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy when the insurance
policy was taken by him. The fact that the appellant took relevant insurance policy
covering period between 5.06.2003 to 4.06.2004 is not in dispute. The case of the
appellant was that the annexure containing terms of the insurance policy had not
been attached along with the document of the policy furnished to him. Though the
respondents denied such averment of the appellant in their written version yet the
appellant reiterated the same stand in his rejoinder affidavit filed before the state
Commission. The State Commission did not deal with this aspect of the matter. In
our opinion, it was necessary for the respondents to prove that the terms and
conditions of the Insurance Policy were furnished to the appellant when the policy
document was issued in his favour. We have not come across any tangible material
to infer that the relevant terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy were brought
to the knowledge of the appellant.”
10. The submission of the counsel for the appellant is that National Commission
erred in observing that the State Commission did not deal with the aspect, whereas
the State Commission has dealt with. When the National Commission has returned the
finding that terms and conditions of the policy were not brought to the knowledge of
the respondent, as it is contrary to the finding of the State Commission, the findings
of the State Commission shall be treated to have been over ruled.
11. The judgment of this Court relied by counsel for the respondent in (2019) 6
SCC 212 (Bharat Watch Company thro its partner v. National Insurance Company Ltd.)
supra covers the case, wherein following has been laid down in para 7 & 10:
“7:“The basic issue which has been canvassed on behalf of the appellant before
this Court is that the conditions of exclusion under the policy document were not
handed over to the appellant by the insurer and in the absence of the appellant
being made aware of the terms of the exclusion, it is not open to the insurer to rely
upon the exclusionary clauses. Hence, it was urged that the decision in Harchand
Rai will have no application since there was no dispute in that case that the policy
document was issued to the insured.
“10 : Having held this, SCDRC also came to the conclusion that the exclusion
would in any event not be attracted. The finding of SCDRC in regard to the
interpretation of such an exclusionary clause is evidently contrary to the law laid
down by this Court in Harchand Rai. However, the relevance of that interpretation
would have arisen provided the conditions of exclusion were provided to the
insured. NCDRC missed the concurrent findings of both the District Forum and
SCDRC that the terms of exclusion were not made known to the insured. If those
conditions were not made known to the insured, as is the concurrent finding, there
was no occasion for NCDRC to render a decision on the effect of such an exclusion.”
12. In view of the above we are of the opinion that no other issue needs to be
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
considered. The appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed on the above ground.
13. Appeal is dismissed.
14. Pending application(s) stand disposed of.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 10398/2011
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.….Appellant(s)
v.
Paresh Mohanlal Parmar.….Respondent(s)
IA No. 152269/2019 - VACATING STAY)
Date : 04-02-2020 These matters were called on for hearing today.
(BEFORE ASHOK BHUSHAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.)
For Appellant(s) Mr. Vishnu Mehra, Adv.

Mr. Anant Mehrotra, Adv.
Ms. Manjeet Chawla, AOR
Ms. Joohi Zaidi, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Shivansh Pandya, Adv.
Mr. Kamal Mohan Gupta, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
15. The Appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
16. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
———
Disclaimer: While every effort is made to avoid any mistake or omission, this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/ rule/ regulation/ circular/
notification is being circulated on the condition and understanding that the publisher would not be liable in any manner by reason of any mistake
or omission or for any action taken or omitted to be taken or advice rendered or accepted on the basis of this casenote/ headnote/ judgment/ act/
rule/ regulation/ circular/ notification. All disputes will be subject exclusively to jurisdiction of courts, tribunals and forums at Lucknow only. The
authenticity of this text must be verified from the original source.

New India Assurance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

New India Assurance

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

New India Assurance

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SCC Online Web Edition, © 2024 EBC Publishing Pvt. Ltd.

Page 1 Tuesday, November 26, 2024

2020 SCC OnLine SC 1414

In the Supreme Court of India

New India Assurance Co. Ltd. and Others … Appellant(s);

For Appellant(s) Mr. Vishnu Mehra, Adv.

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.