1. Insurance contract for transit of goods — Clause for refund of proportionate premium on unutilised coverage — Dispute over refund amount due to alleged undercharging of premium. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 )
Back
Next 
1999 Supreme(SC) 731
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.P.Sethi : S.Saghir Ahmad
Oriental Insurance Company Limited
Versus
Mantora Oil Products Private Limited
Case No. : 873 of 1992
Important Points
An insurance company cannot unilaterally adjust or retain a portion of the refund due for unutilized premium based on a mistake in the initial premium rate charged, especially after the policy period has expired and the premium was accepted without objection.
Subject
Civil Law - Insurance Law
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Insurance Law - Contract of Insurance - Refund of proportionate premium for unutilized coverage - Insurer cannot unilaterally adjust the refund amount on the ground that the premium charged was lower than the prescribed rate in a circular - If a mistake existed in the premium rate, it should have been pointed out during the subsistence of the policy - Once the premium is accepted and the policy is issued, the insurer is bound by the terms and cannot make unilateral adjustments after the policy period has expired. (Para 5)
Facts of the case:
A company dealing in oil products took insurance policies for the transport of goods with a total coverage of Rs 17.10 crores. A condition of the contract provided for the refund of proportionate premium on the unutilized portion of the coverage. Upon expiry, the company sought a refund for the shortfall in the quantity transported. The insurance company paid only a partial amount, contending that the premium had been charged at 30% instead of the 50% rate prescribed by a circular. The consumer commission allowed the claim for the full refund.
Findings of Court:
The insurance company is under an obligation to refund the extra premium in terms of the policy. It cannot unilaterally make any adjustment from the amount of unutilized premium and retain a part of it on the ground that the premium charged was less than what should have been charged.
Issues: Whether the insurance company could unilaterally deduct a portion of the unutilized premium refund based on an alleged error in the initial premium rate charged.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if there was a mistake in collecting the premium, it should have been pointed out at the time of entering the contract or immediately thereafter. Having received the premium and provided cover, the insurer cannot later claim a mistake to avoid refunding the unutilized premium.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Facts of the case:
A company dealing in oil products took insurance policies for the transport of goods with a total coverage of Rs 17.10 crores. A condition of the contract provided for the refund of proportionate premium on the unutilized portion of the coverage. Upon expiry, the company sought a refund for the shortfall in the quantity transported. The insurance company paid only a partial amount, contending that the premium had been charged at 30% instead of the 50% rate prescribed by a circular. The consumer commission allowed the claim for the full refund.
Findings of Court:
The insurance company is under an obligation to refund the extra premium in terms of the policy. It cannot unilaterally make any adjustment from the amount of unutilized premium and retain a part of it on the ground that the premium charged was less than what should have been charged.
Issues: Whether the insurance company could unilaterally deduct a portion of the unutilized premium refund based on an alleged error in the initial premium rate charged.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that if there was a mistake in collecting the premium, it should have been pointed out at the time of entering the contract or immediately thereafter. Having received the premium and provided cover, the insurer cannot later claim a mistake to avoid refunding the unutilized premium.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the insurer is entitled to adjust the refund of unutilised premium to recover a shortfall in the premium rate charged based on a regulatory circular. (Para 4 )
3. Insurer cannot unilaterally adjust refund amounts for alleged premium undercharging if the mistake was not raised during the policy period and the insured fulfilled all obligations. (Para 5 )
4. An insurer cannot unilaterally recover an alleged undercharged premium from a refund of unutilised coverage after the policy has expired and the contract was executed. (Para 5 )
5. Appeal dismissed; the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission allowing the claim is upheld. (Para 6 )
6. Can an insurance company unilaterally adjust a premium refund to correct a mistake in the premium rate charged?
No. If the insurer charged a lower premium by mistake, it must raise the objection during the policy period. Once the policy expires and the insured has fulfilled their obligations, the insurer cannot unilaterally adjust the refund to recover the shortfall. (Para 5 )
7. What is the legal significance of the parties being ad idem in an insurance contract?
The parties must be ad idem (in agreement) on vital parts of the contract, such as the premium rate; a lack of agreement on such essential terms would have an adverse effect on the contract itself. (Para 5 )
8. Is an insurer obligated to refund unutilised premium if the contract specifically provides for such a refund?
Yes, if the contract contains a condition to refund the proportionate amount of premium for the unutilised portion of the coverage, the insurer is under a legal obligation to perform that refund. (Para 2 , 5 )
(1) THE respondent Company dealt in oil products and for that purpose, it used to purchase vegetable and refined oil from different parts of the country and transported the same in oil tankers. In order to protect itself against losses due to accidents, theft, pilferage, non-delivery etc., occurring in the course of transit, the respondent took insurance policies with the appellant in January 1988. The first policy was for an insurance cover of Rs 10,10,00,000 which was further increased by Rs 7 crores. Thus the total insurance coverage was for Rs 17.10 crores for which an aggregate premium of Rs 4,26,826 was paid by the respondent to the appellant.
(2) ONE of the conditions of the contract of insurance was that in respect of the unutilised portion of the coverage, the appellant would refund to the respondent the proportionate amount of premium. That is to say, if the value of the total quantity of oil transported fell short of Rs 17.10 crores during the period of policy, the appellant would refund to the respondent the proportionate premium on the amount of shortfall in the quantity transported.
(3) IT is not disputed that the respondent had transported goods worth Rs 9,71,59,990 during the period of the policies. After the expiry of the period of the insurance policies, the respondent requested for refund of the proportionate premium amounting to Rs 2,05,797 but the respondent Company paid only a sum of Rs 40,889 through a cheque on the ground that the premium charged by the appellant from the respondent was less than what it ought to have been charged. It was pointed out that the premium was levied only at the rate of 30% whereas it should have been at the rate of 50% in view of the circular dated 7-3-1986. It was in these circumstances that the respondent approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short "the Commission") which has allowed the claim of the respondent.
(4) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company has contended that in view of the circular dated 7-3-1986, the premium should have been paid at the rate of 50% and not at the rate of 30% as was done by the respondent. We are not prepared to accept this contention.
(5) IF it was a mistake, the same should have been pointed out to the respondent during the period of the policy but the appellant did not raise this objection at any time during the continuance of the policy cover. The respondent also fulfilled its obligations under the policy and paid the premium as was agreed to between the parties. If there was a mistake on the part of the appellant in collecting the premium, the same should have been pointed out at the time of entering into the contract or immediately thereafter. After having received the benefit under the policy of insurance from the respondent by way of premium, it is not open to the appellant to contend that there was a mistake on their part in charging the premium at a rate lower than the rate at which it should have been charged by them. If the parties were not ad idem on this vital part of the contract of insurance, it would have an adverse effect on the contract itself. Since the period of policy is over, the appellant is under an obligation to refund the extra premium in terms of the policy. It cannot itself unilaterally make any adjustment from the amount of unutilised premium and retain a part of it on the ground that the premium charged was less than what it should have been charged.
(6) THE Commission, in these circumstances, was fully justified in allowing the claim of the respondent and we see no infirmity in the judgment passed by it. The appeal is dismissed but without any order as to costs.
