Skip to main content

Ambiguity in policy and definition of 'Tail End Transit'

In Va Tech Wabag Limited vs Cholamandalam Ms. General, a container truck while carrying membranes from Chennai Port to Nemmeli met with an accident while in transit.  On intimation being given to the insurer, a surveyor was appointed to assess the loss to the complainant.  The surveyor assessed the loss at Rs.1.60 crores but the claim was rejected vide letter dated 19.4.2012.

The only question before NCDRC which arises for consideration in this complaint is as to whether goods were in tail end transit at the time the truck met with an accident and the goods were consequently damaged.  The term 'tail end transit' has not been defined anywhere in the insurance policy. In the ordinary parlance, the aforesaid term would mean the final phase of the journey. A term, which is not clearly defined and therefore is capable of the several interpretations depending upon the factual matrix, would be a vague term and the benefit of such a term would accrue to the insured.

Hon'ble Supreme Court in New India Assurance Company Limited Vs. Zuari Industries Ltd. & Others (2009) 9 SCC 70, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to its previous decision in General Assurance Society Ltd. Vs. Chandmull Jain, AIR 1966 SC 1644 holding that in case of ambiguity in a contract of insurance, the ambiguity should be resolved in favour of the claimant and against the insurance company.  Reliance is also placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Pushpalaya Printers (2004) 3 SCC 694, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated that where the words of a documents are ambiguous they shall be construed against the party, which prepared the documents.

However, NCDRC decided that irrespective of the ambiguity of the policy document, if the journey of the goods involves multiple cities, the tail end transit would begin when the goods enter the final city in which their journey has to terminate. In the journey involving a single city, the tail end transit, in my opinion would be the destination point where the goods have to be unloaded.  In the present case, the goods were to be unloaded at Nemmeli site, which s stated to be a part of Chennai.  The accident happened just before the trailer carrying goods was to enter the Nemmeli site.  Since trailer had not actually entered Nemmeli site, the goods, in my opinion were not in the tail end transit at the time they got damaged.  Therefore, there was no requirement of the entering into a written agreement as to the rate and other terms, prior to commencement of the transit.


Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Appellate authorities under Special Statutes cannot be asked to condone delay

Madras High Court in R.Gowrishankar vs. The Commissioner of Service Tax has held that Appellate authorities cannot be asked to condone the delay, beyond the extended period of limitation A Division Bench comprising of Justices S. Manikumar and D. Krishnakumar, made this observation while considering an appeal filed against Single Bench order declining to set aside the order made in the condone delay petition filed by the petitioner to condone 223 days in filing the appeal before the Commissioner of Service Tax (Appeals). Article referred: http://www.livelaw.in/appellate-authorities-special-statutes-cannot-asked-condone-delay-beyond-extended-period-limitation-madras-hc/
Post a Comment
Read more

'Seize assets to pay damages to accident victim'

Her story might be an inspiration for the physically challenged but justice has remained elusive for her. In 2008, a bus accident left research engineer S Thenmozhi, 30, paraplegic. In April 2013, the motor accident claims tribunal directed the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (TNSTC) to provide her a compensation of 57.9 lakh. However, TNSTC refused to budge and on Tuesday a city court ordered attaching of movable assets of the transport corporation. Thenmozhi was employed in C-DOT, a telecom technology development centre in Bangalore. On July 21, 2008, she was coming to Chennai in a private bus. Around 2am, the bus had a flat tyre and the driver parked it on the left side of the road near Pallikonda in Vellore district on the Bangalore-Chennai highway. While the tyre was being changed, a TNSTC bus of Dharmapuri division hit the stationary bus. The rear part of the bus was smashed and passengers were injured. Thenmozhi who had a seat at the back of the bus suffered...
Post a Comment
Read more

Mumbai ITAT rules income of offshore discretionary trust is subject to tax in India

The Mumbai Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) has recently determined the following issue in the affirmative in the case of Manoj Dhupelia: Should the income of an offshore discretionary trust be subject to tax in India, if no distributions have been made to beneficiaries in India? The question arose from appeals filed by individual beneficiaries in relation to a Lichtenstein-based trust, the Ambrunova Trust and Merlyn Management SA (the Trust) with the ITAT. It is important to note that the individuals in this case were amongst those first identified by the Government of India (GOI) as holding undeclared bank accounts in Lichtenstein. The ITAT ruling raises the following issues: Taxation of Trust Corpus: ITAT classified the corpus of the trust as "undisclosed income" and declared it taxable in the hands of the beneficiaries. Taxation of Undistributed Income: ITAT refused to draw a distinction between the corpus and undistributed income from the trust and declared i...
Post a Comment
Read more