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

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

Procedure to be followed on admissibility of additional evidence at appeal stage

In The Corporation of Madras vs M. Parthasarathy & Ors., the trial court had allowed the respondent company to file evidence in the form of photocopies and had dismissed all the four suits filed by the respondents with costs as the evidence were in the form of photocopies and were objected to by the respondents. On appeal the Additional District Judge allowed the respondents to file additional evidence in the form the original documents of the earlier admitted photocopies and based on the same allowed the appeal. In its turn the High Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants who in turn approached the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided that the first Appellate Court committed two jurisdictional errors in allowing the appeals.  Referring to earlier judgements of the Supreme Court in Land Acquisition Officer, City Improvement Trust Board vs. H. Narayanaiah & Ors., , Shalimar Chemical Works Ltd. vs. Surendra Oil & Dal Mills (Refineri...
Post a Comment
Read more