Skip to main content

Insurance Company Cannot Unilaterally Delete Policy Terms To Reduce Coverage

In CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1128 OF 2019, M/S TWENTY FIRST CENTURY MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED vs NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., appeal was filed against the decision of the High Court both single bench as well as the division bench from interfering in the dispute on the ground that it was a contractual issue involving disputed question of facts only.

The issue was the decision of the insurance company in deleting the expressions "floods, rains" from the policy issued by it. The insurer had earlier issued issued the policy  covering cricket matches to the appellant with the deleted expressions and the appellant had raised claim on the insurer on the said grounds.after the match at Kochi was abandoned. The insurer after settling the claim, apprehending that similar claims may be made in future qua other matches, unilaterally deleted from the policy, the expression “floods, rains, etc.” 

The appellant initially approached the high court stating that the action of the insurance company was arbitrary and affects its fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India and finally reached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court setting aside the decision of the high court held that there is no dispute whatsoever that the action in the present case by the respondent was wholly arbitrary and violated the appellant’s fundamental right under Article 14. No disputed question of fact is raised, and it is settled by several decisions of this Court that even within the contractual sphere, the State, as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution, cannot be arbitrary.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

How to know if a temple/mandir is Public or Private?

In Shri Ram Mandir Indore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, the appellant had contended before the Supreme Court that the Ram Mandir in question is a private temple established by predecessor Gurus and that the properties had been given to the suit temple as Inam and Ram Das was not a mere pujari but the Mahant of the said temple entitled to manage and administer the temple and the suit properties. The appeal was against the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh High Court which had declared the temple as public and the suit property vested in the Deity; and Ram Das and then Bajrang Das are only pujaris and not Mahant-Manager of the temple. The Supreme Court agreeing with the High Court noted the following points :- 1) In 2013, Madhya Pradesh Government published a Directory containing names of all public temples in District Ujjain updating till 31.12.2012, wherein the said temple has been shown as a public temple and Bajrang Das and Ram Das are only shown to be the pujaris. 2)...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dishonour of cheques - Jurisdiction and cause of action explained

In a landmark judgment, Hon'ble Supreme Court went to some length to define the cause of action and jurisdiction of cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. While deciding in 2014 STPL(Web) 499 SC 1, Dashrath Rupsingh Rathod Vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr., the Hon'ble court said, one of the main issues faced by the court (a) from which stage do we consider a offence under Section 138 to have been caused (b) Where would the jurisdiction of the court lie if the cheque was drawn in city A and presented dishonored in City B ? After discussion on various past decisions, the Hon'ble court finally affirmed, " To sum up: (i) An offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is committed no sooner a cheque drawn by the accused on an account being maintained by him in a bank for discharge of debt/liability is returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds or for the reason that the amount exceeds the arrangement made with the bank. (...
Post a Comment
Read more

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