JAINA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY versus THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 175, Supreme Court of India, 2022
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Ratio
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
175
[2022] 2 S.C.R. 175
175
JAINA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
v.
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 1069 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 11, 2022
[SANJIV KHANNA AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Consumer Protection – Insurance claim – Theft of vehicle –
Delay in informing the insurance company– Claim repudiated–
Appellant filed complaint before District forum, allowed – Appeal,
dismissed by State Commission – Appellant had also filed appeal
seeking enhancement of compensation which was partly allowed as
the rate of interest awarded was increased from 6% to 9% – Revision
Petition filed by Insurance Company, allowed by NCDRC – On appeal,
held: FIR was lodged immediately by the appellant on the next day of
the occurrence of theft of the vehicle – Accused were also arrested
and chargesheeted, however, the vehicle could not be traced out –
Insurance Company has not repudiated the claim on the ground that
it was not genuine but only on the ground of delay – When the claim
of the insured was not found to be not genuine, the Insurance
Company could not have repudiated the claim merely on the ground
that there was delay in intimating about the occurrence of the theft –
NCDRC should not have set aside the orders of the District Forum
and State Commission by holding that the repudiation of the insurance
claim by the insurance company was justified – Impugned order set
aside – Order of State Commission affirmed.
Gurshinder Singh v. Shriram General Insurance
Company Ltd.
& Another 2020 (11) SCC 612 : [2020]
2 SCR 564 – relied on.
Case Law Reference
[2020] 2 SCR 564
relied on
Para 8
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.1069 of
2022.
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.09.2016 of the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision
Petition No.1104 of 2016.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
176
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
Avinash Lakhanpal, Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal, Advs. for the
Appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the impugned order dated
9th September, 2016 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the NCDRC”) in
Revision Petition No. 1104 of 2016 whereby the NCDRC while allowing
the said Revision Petition filed by Respondent No. 1-Insurance Company,
has set aside the order dated 16th December, 2015 passed by the State
Consumer Disputes Redressal, Commission, Haryana at Panchkula and
the order dated 26th February, 2015 passed by the District Consumer
Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon.
2.  Heard Mr. Avinash Lakhanpal, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the appellant. None has entered appearance on behalf of the
respondents though duly served.
3. The precise question that falls for consideration before this
Court is -whether the Insurance Company could repudiate the claim in
toto, made by the owner of the vehicle, which was duly insured with the
insurance company, in case of loss of the vehicle due to theft, merely on
the ground that there was a delay in informing the company regarding
the theft of vehicle?
4. The undisputed facts transpiring from the record are that the
vehicle in question i.e., Tata Aiwa Truck bearing Registration No. RJ-
02-098177 was purchased by the appellant on 31.10.2007.
The said vehicle
was duly insured with Respondent No. 1- Insurance Company. The said
vehicle was robbed by some miscreants on 04.11.2007. Consequently,
an FIR was registered by the appellant-complainant on 05.11.2007 for
the offence under Section 395 IPC at Police Station Nagina, District
Mewat (Haryana). The police arrested the accused and also filed the
challan against them in the concerned Court, however, the vehicle in
question could not be traced and, therefore, the police filed untraceable
report on 23.08.2008. Thereafter, the complainant lodged the claim with
the Insurance Company with regard to the theft of the vehicle in question.
The Insurance Company, however, failed to settle the claim within a
reasonable time, and therefore, the appellant-complainant filed a complaint
being the Consumer Complaint No. 63 of 2010 before the District
Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
177
5. It may be noted that during the pendency of the complaint
before the District Forum, the respondent no.1- Insurance Company
repudiated the claim of the complainant vide its letter dated 19.10.2010,
stating inter alia that there was a breach of condition no. 1 of the policy
which mandated immediate notice to the insurer of the accidental loss/
damage, and that the complainant had intimated about the loss on
11.04.2008 i.e. after the lapse of more than five months and, therefore,
the Insurance Company had disowned their liability on the claim of the
complainant.
6. The District Forum allowed the said claim of the complainant
by holding that the complainant was entitled to the insured amount on
non-standard basis, i.e., Rs. 12,79,399/- as 75% of the IDV i.e., Rs.
17,05,865/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of the complaint
till realization from the Insurance Company. The District Forum also
awarded compensation of Rs.10,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.5,000/
- to the complainant. The aggrieved Insurance Company preferred an
appeal being Appeal No. 612 of 2015 before the State Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission (Haryana), Panchkula. The complainant also
preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 537 of 2015 seeking enhancement
of compensation. The State Commission dismissed the appeal filed by
the Insurance Company and partly allowed the appeal filed by the
complainant by increasing rate of interest awarded by the District Forum
from 6%
to 9% vide the Judgment and Order dated 16.12.2015. The
aggrieved Insurance Company preferred the Revision Petition before
the NCDRC which came to be allowed as stated hereinabove.
7. Since the respondent no.1 - Insurance Company has repudiated
the claim of the complainant on the ground that the complainant had
committed the breach of Condition No. 1 of the Insurance Contract, it
would be beneficial to reproduce the said condition, which reads as under:
“1. Notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately
upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage in the
event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all
such information and assistance as the company shall require.
Every letter, claim, writ, summons and/or process or copy
thereof shall be forwarded to the company immediately on
receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in writing to
the company immediately the insured shall have knowledge
of any impending prosecution, inquest or fatal inquiry in
JAINA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. THE ORIENTAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
178
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim
under this policy. In case of a major loss, theft or criminal act
which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the
insured shall give immediate notice to the policeand co-operate
with the company in securing the conviction of the offender.”
8. At the outset, it may be noted that there being a conflict of
decisions of the Bench of two Judges of this Court in case of Om
Prakash vs. Reliance General Insurance & Another and in case of
Oriental Insurance Company Limited vs. Parvesh Chander Chadha,
on the question as to whether the delay occurred in informing the
Insurance Company about the occurrence of the theft of the vehicle,
though the FIR was registered immediately, would disentitle the claimant
of the insurance claim, the matter was referred to a three Judge Bench.
The three Judge Bench in case of Gurshinder Singh vs. Shriram
General Insurance Company Ltd. & Another reported in 2020 (11)
SCC 612 in similar case as on hand, interpreted the very condition no. 1
of the Insurance Contract and observed as under:
“9. We are of the view that much would depend upon the
words “cooperate” and “immediate”, in Condition 1 of the
standard form for commercial vehicles package policy. Before
we analyse this case any further, we need to observe the rules
of interpretation applicable to a contract of insurance.
Generally, an insurance contract is governed by the rules
of
interpretation applicable to the general contracts. However,
due to the specialised nature of contract of insurance, certain
rules are tailored to suit insurance contracts. Under the
English law, the development of insurance jurisprudence is
given credence to Lord Mansfield, who developed the law
from its infancy. Without going much into the development of
the interpretation rules, we may allude to Neuberger, J.
in Arnold v. Britton, which is simplified as under:
(1)
Reliance placed in some cases on commercial common
sense and surrounding circumstances was not to be
invoked to undervalue the importance of the language
of the provision which is to be construed.
(2)
The less clear the words used were, the more ready the
court could properly be to depart from their natural
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
179
meaning, but that did not justify departing from the
natural meaning.
(3)
Commercial common sense was not to be invoked
retrospectively, so that the mere fact that a contractual
arrangement has worked out badly, or even disastrously,
for one of the parties was not a reason for departing
from the natural language.
(4)
A court should be very slow to reject the natural
meaning of a provision as correct simply because it
appeared to be a very imprudent term for one of the
parties to have agreed.
(5)
When interpreting a contractual provision, the court
could only take into account facts or circumstances
which existed at the time that the contract was made
and which were known or reasonably available to both
parties.
(6)
If an event subsequently occurred which was plainly
not intended or contemplated by the parties, if it was
clear what the parties would have intended, the court
would give effect to that intention.
10. A perusal of the aforesaid shows that this contract is to be
interpreted according to the context involved in the contract.
The contract we are interpreting is a commercial vehicle
package policy. There is no gainsaying that in a contract, the
bargaining power is usually at equal footing. In this regard,
the joint intention of the parties is taken into consideration for
interpretation of a contract. However, in most standard form
contracts, that is not so. In this regard, the court in such
circumstances would consider the application of the rule
of contra proferentem, when ambiguity exists and an
interpretation of the contract is preferred which favours the
party with lesser bargaining power.
11. It is argued on behalf of the respondents and rightly so,
that the insurance policy is a contract between the insurer
and the insured and the parties would be strictly bound by the
terms and conditions as provided in the contract between the
parties.
JAINA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. THE ORIENTAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
180
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
12. In our view, applying the aforesaid principles, Condition
1 of the standard form for commercial vehicles package
policy will have to be divided into two parts. The perusal of
the first part of Condition 1 would reveal that it provides that
“a notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately
upon the occurrence of any accidental loss or damage”. It
further provides that in the event of any claim and thereafter,
the insured shall give all such information and assistance as
the company shall require. It provides that every letter, claim,
writ, summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be
forwarded to the insurance company immediately on receipt
by the insured. It further provides that a notice shall also be
given in writing to the company immediately by the insured if
he shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution inquest
or fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence, which may give
rise to a claim under this policy.
13. A perusal of the wordings used in this part would reveal
that all the things which are required to be done under this
part are related to an occurrence of an accident. On
occurrence of an accidental loss, the insured is required to
immediately give a notice in writing to the company. This
appears to be so that the company can assign a surveyor so
as to assess the damages suffered by the insured/vehicle. It
further provides that any letter, claim, writ, summons and/or
process or
copy thereof shall be forwarded to the company
immediately on receipt by the insured. As such, the intention
would be clear. The question of receipt of letter, claim, writ,
summons and/or process or copy thereof by the insured, would
only arise in the event of the criminal proceedings being
initiated with regard to the occurrence of the accident. It
further provides that the insured shall also give a notice in
writing to the company immediately if the insured shall have
the knowledge of any impending prosecution inquest or fatal
inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a
claim under this policy. It will again make the intention clear
that the immediate action is contemplated in respect of an
accident occurring to the vehicle.
14. We find that the second part of Condition 1 deals with the
“theft or criminal act other than the accident”. It provides
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
181
that in case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject
of a claim under the policy, the insured shall give immediate
notice to the police and cooperate with the company in securing
the conviction of the offender. The object behind giving
immediate notice to the police appears to be that if the police
is immediately informed about the theft or any criminal act,
the police machinery can be set in motion and steps for
recovery of the vehicle could be expedited. In a case of theft,
the insurance company or a surveyor would have a limited
role. It is the police, who acting on the FIR of the insured,
will be required to take immediate steps for tracing and
recovering the vehicle. Per contra, the surveyor of the
insurance company, at the most, could ascertain the factum
regarding the theft of the vehicle.
15. It is further to be noted that, in the event, after the
registration of an FIR, the police successfully recovering the
vehicle and returning the same to the insured, there would be
no occasion to lodge a claim for compensation on account of
the policy. It is only when the police are not in a position to
trace and recover the vehicle and the final report is lodged
by the police after the vehicle is not traced, the insured would
be in a position to lodge his claim for compensation.
16. ……………………
17. That the term “cooperate” as used under the contract
needs to be assessed in the facts and circumstances. While
assessing the “duty to cooperate” for the
insured, inter alia,
the court should have regard to those breaches by the insured
which are prejudicial to the insurance company. Usually, mere
delay in informing the theft to the insurer, when the same
was already informed to the law enforcement authorities,
cannot amount to a breach of “duty to cooperate” of the
insured.
18. ……………
19. …………..
20. We, therefore, hold that when an insured has lodged the
FIR immediately after the theft of a vehicle occurred and
when the police after investigation have lodged a final report
JAINA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. THE ORIENTAL
INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. [BELA M. TRIVEDI, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
182
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 2 S.C.R.
after the vehicle was not traced and when the surveyors/
investigators appointed by the insurance company have found
the claim of the theft to be genuine, then mere delay in
intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of
the theft cannot be a ground to deny the claim of the insured.”
9. In the opinion of the Court the afore-stated ratio of the judgment
clinches the issue involved in the case on hand. In the instant case also,
the FIR was lodged immediately on the next day of the occurrence of
theft of the vehicle by the complainant. The accused were also arrested
and charge-sheeted, however, the vehicle could not be traced out. Of
course, it is true that there was a delay of about five months on the part
of the complainant in informing and lodging its claim before the Insurance
Company, nonetheless, it is pertinent to note that the Insurance Company
has not repudiated the claim on the ground that it was not genuine. It has
repudiated only on the ground of delay. When the complainant had lodged
the FIR immediately after the theft of the vehicle, and when the police
after the investigation had arrested the accused and also filed challan
before the concerned Court, and when the claim of the insured was not
found to be not genuine, the Insurance Company could not have repudiated
the claim merely on the ground that there was a delay in intimating the
Insurance Company about the occurrence of the theft.
10. In
that view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the
NCDRC should not have set aside the orders of the District Forum and
the State Commission by holding that the repudiation of the insurance
claim by the insurance company was justified. The impugned order being
erroneous and against the settled position of law, deserves to be set
aside, and is set aside, accordingly.
11. The appeal is allowed, affirming the order of the State
Commission.
Divya Pandey
Appeal allowed.