Skip to main content

Insurance policy not voidable for misrepresentation if insurer had means of finding truth

In Oriental Insurance Company vs Mahendra Construction, the respondent / complainant obtained an insurance policy from the appellant in respect of a hydraulic excavator machine. The said machine having been set on fire by Naxalites, a claim was preferred before the appellant. The claim was rejected as the vehicle was earlier insured with M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd., prior to obtaining insurance from Oriental Insurance, after the gap of approx. eleven months since the expiry of previous policy.

The State Forum allowed the complain and awarded compensation. Appeal was filed before NCDRC against said order.

The NCDRC partly allowed the appeal and referring to various judgments including the judgement of the NCDRC in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Jindal Poly Buttons Ltd., held that as per Section 18 & 19 of the Contract Act, particularly the exception under Section 19, even if the insurance policy is obtained by misrepresentation or silence, the contract of insurance is not voidable if the insurer had the means of discovering the truth with ordinary diligence.  Since admittedly the previous insurance policy had been annexed to the proposal submitted by the complainant, the appellant, on exercise of due diligence, could easily have verified from New India Assurance Co. Ltd.  that the complainant had submitted a claim with it under the previous policy which it had taken from the said insurer. Therefore, considering the exception to the Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, the appellant cannot deny the benefit of insurance to the complainant on account of the information with respect to the previous claim lodged by the complainant having not been disclosed in the proposal form.

However, following the decision rendered by the Larger Bench and considering the fact that the complainant / respondent did not expressly disclose the previous claim lodged with New India Assurance Co. Ltd.  while responding to Clause 25(g) of the proposal form, the complainant, should be paid on non-standard basis by deducting 25% of the amount otherwise payable to it under the contract of insurance.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Deposit Of Minimum 20% Fine/Compensation U/s 148 NI Act Mandatory

In OP(Crl.).No.348 OF 2019, T.K.SAJEEVAN vs FRANCIS T.CHACKO, the appeal was filed against the order of the lower court to deposit 25% of the fine before filling of appeal. The appellant argued that the deposit introduced through the Section 148 of the NI Act after amendment was directory in nature as it used the term 'may' while mentioning the issue of deposit. The Kerala High Court however disagreeing held that in view of the object of the Legislature while incorporating Section 148 into N.I. Act, the word 'may' will have to be read as 'shall'. The imposition of payment contemplated under Section 148 N.I. Act cannot be restricted to some prosecutions and evaded in other prosecutions. Since the amount directed to be deposited being compensation, undoubtedly, it is liable to be ordered to be deposited irrespective of the nature of the prosecution. Therefore, the word 'may' can only be taken to have the colour and meaning of 'shall' and there
Post a Comment
Read more

NCLT - Mere admission of receipt of money does not qualify as a financial debt

Cause Title : Meghna Devang Juthani Vs Ambe Securities Private Limited, National Company Law Tribunal, Mumbai, CP (IB) No. 974/MB-VI/2020 Date of Judgment/Order : 18.12.2023 Corum : Hon’ble Shri K. R. Saji Kumar, Member (Judicial) Hon’ble Shri Sanjiv Dutt, Member (Technical) Citied:  Carnoustie Management India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CBS International Projects Private Limited, NCLT Swiss Ribbons Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs. Union of India & Ors. (2019) Sanjay Kewalramani vs Sunil Parmanand Kewalramani & Ors. (2018) Pawan Kumar vs. Utsav Securities Pvt Ltd 2021 Background Application was filed under section 7 of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016 alleging loan of Rs, 1.70 cr is due. The Applicate identified herself as the widow and heir of the lender but could not produce any documents proving financial contract between her Late husband and the CD but claimed that the CD has accepted that money was received from her husband. The applicant subsequently filed rejoinder claiming the debt t
Post a Comment
Read more

Jurisdiction of consumer forum is not ousted even if the other party has filed suit on the same matter in Civil Court

In Yashwant Rama Jadhav v. Shaukat Hussain Shaikh, First Appeal No. 1229 of 2017, decided on 18.11.2017,  the grievance of the petitioner before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission was that appellants/complainants had entered into agreements with the respondents for purchase of residential flats, which the respondents were to construct and despite paying the substantial amount to the respondents, the construction of the flats had not been completed. The State Commission dismissed the complaints and ruled in favor of respondents against which the appellants approached the National Commission. The NCDRC held that Section ‘3’ of the Consumer Protection Act, to the extent it is relevant provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law for the time being in force. Thus the remedy available under the Consumer Protection Act is an additional remedy, which Parliament has made available to a consumer. Even
Post a Comment
Read more