1. Marine insurance claim repudiation — Damage to goods during transit storage at railway yard — Dispute over coverage termination and duty to mitigate loss. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 )
Back
Next 
2025 Supreme(SC) 1121
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B. R. Gavai, C.J.I., Augustine George Masih, J.
M/S. Bengani Food Products Private Limited and another – Appellants
Versus
National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 6406 of 2016
Decided On : 24-07-2025
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj, Adv. Mr. Vedant Bharadwaj, Adv. Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, AOR Mrs. Pooja Gupata, Adv. Mr. D.m.sharma, Adv. Mrs. Surbhi Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Niraj Singh, Adv. Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Dr. Sumant Bharadwaj, Adv. Mr. Vedant Bharadwaj, Adv. Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, AOR Mrs. Pooja Gupata, Adv. Mr. D.m.sharma, Adv. Mrs. Surbhi Sharma, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Niraj Singh, Adv. Dr. Mrs. Vipin Gupta, AOR
The repudiation of the insurance claim was valid as coverage ceased upon delivery, and the insured failed to take reasonable care to protect the goods as required under the policy terms.
Headnote:(A) Insurance Act, 1938 - Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Marine Insurance Policy - Repudiation of claim for goods damaged in transit - Coverage lapsed upon unloading at the railway yard per Clause 5 of the Inland Transit (Rail/Road) Clause A - Appellant failed to take reasonable care leading to damage, breaching Clause 8 - Repudiation upheld by NCDRC on grounds of timing and lack of preventive measures. (Paras 5, 8, 18, 32)
(B) Principles of insurance - Requirement of good faith and full disclosure; insured bears burden to act prudently in safeguarding cargo - Non-disclosure of subsequent transport of maize undermines the claim. (Paras 20, 28, 30)
(C) Duty of care - Insurer relieved from liability when insured fails to adequately protect goods post-delivery - Storage conditions and inadequate packaging contravened policy terms. (Paras 25, 27)
Facts of the case:
Appellants contested the repudiation of their insurance claim for maize damaged in transit following heavy rains while stored at Shalimar Railway Yard, after unloading. Appellants were insured for INR 200 Crores, with claims totaling INR 3.06 crore dismissed by NCDRC.
Findings of Court:
NCDRC upheld repudiation, indicating the loss occurred beyond policy coverage and failure of the insured to mitigate damage.
Issues: Whether the repudiation was valid under insurance policy terms and whether the insured fulfilled obligations.
Ratio Decidendi: Court confirmed the principles of policy interpretation and good faith under insurance contracts, asserting that coverage ceased upon delivery and failure to manage risk discharged the insurer from liability.
Result: Civil Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether coverage continued post-unloading under warehouse-to-warehouse terms — Whether the insured failed to exercise reasonable care and breached packaging standards. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
3. Coverage ceased upon unloading as goods were in insured's possession — Failure to protect goods from rain and non-disclosure of stock movement breached policy terms. (Para 18 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 )
4. Insurance contracts are commercial transactions construed by their own terms — Coverage terminates upon delivery or specified time limits — Insured must maintain utmost good faith. (Para 20 , 23 , 28 )
5. Civil appeal dismissed — Order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission upholding the insurance claim repudiation affirmed. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 )
6. When does insurance coverage terminate in a marine transit policy under warehouse-to-warehouse terms?
Coverage terminates upon delivery to the final warehouse at the destination or after a specified period following arrival at the destination railway station, whichever occurs first. Mere logistical delays in vacating wagons do not extend the policy coverage once goods are unloaded and in the insured's possession. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
7. What is the duty of the insured regarding the mitigation of loss in insurance contracts?
The insured is obligated to take reasonable measures to avert or minimize loss and ensure that rights against third parties are preserved. Failure to take basic precautions against foreseeable risks, such as inadequate weather protection, may justify the repudiation of the claim. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 )
8. How does the doctrine of uberrima fides apply to insurance claims?
The doctrine of uberrima fides demands complete and truthful disclosure of all material facts by the insured. Concealing material information, such as the subsequent movement of stock after a loss event, strikes at the root of the contractual obligation and impairs the integrity of the claim. (Para 20 , 28 )
9. When is the principle of contra proferentem applicable in the interpretation of insurance policies?
The principle of contra proferentem, where ambiguous terms are construed against the party that drafted the contract, applies only when the policy wording is ambiguous. It cannot be invoked if the relevant clause is worded with clarity and precision. (Para 30 )
JUDGMENT :
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. The Appellants challenged the repudiation decision dated 07.09.2007 of Marine Transit Open (Declaration) Insurance Policy claim of M/s Bengani Food Products Pvt. Ltd., being Appellant No. 01 herein, by the National Insurance Company Ltd., being Respondent No. 01 herein, owing to damage of goods while being in transit at the Shalimar Railway Godown at Howrah in West Bengal. Vide impugned order dated 18.02.2016, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi affirmed the repudiation of the said insurance claim, which is now being challenged through this Civil Appeal.
2. M/s Bengani Food Products Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter the “Appellant-Insured”) is a company dealing in the export of poultry and cattle feed. On the other hand, the National Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter the “Respondent-Insurer”) is the concerned insurer for the marine open transit policy.
3. The relevant facts pertaining to this matter are that the Appellant-Insured had obtained a Marine Insurance Policy from the Respondent-Insurer which had a coverage of INR 200 Crores for the period between 25.01.2007 to 24.01.2008. The consignment consisting of maize meant for the commercial use in poultry feed weighing 24,700 quintals in railway rake of 40 wagons was unloaded on 07.02.2007 at the Shalimar Railway Yard in Howrah, West Bengal. The stock was dumped at the open siding of the railway yard and out of which around 2,627 quintals were immediately sold to a third-party by the Appellant-Insured. On the evening of 07.02.2007 and then from the afternoon of 08.02.2007, the area experienced heavy rainfall and since the consignment of maize in gunny bags was left in the open siding, it got exposed to rain leading to the fungal contamination and mycotoxins were developed, thereby making it unfit for poultry consumption.
4. The Appellant-Insured informed the Respondent-Insurer regarding the incident vide Letter dated 09.02.2007 seeking instructions for urgent disposal of the maize, valued at INR 2.12 Crores and to stop incurring the Wharfage from Indian Railways. The Respondent-Insurer appointed a surveyor the same day to assess the extent of the loss. The report submitted by the surveyor on 06.03.2007 estimated the loss at INR 62,25,012.77/- (Rupees Sixty-Two Lakh Twenty-Five Thousand Twelve and Seventy-Seven Paise only). Subsequently the report submitted by the surveyor on 22.05.2007, the amount was revised to INR 36,17,610/- (Rupees Thirty-Six Lakh Seventeen Thousand and Six-Hundred Ten only) as it came to light that substantial part of the consignment about 10,910.4 quintal was on 14.02.2007-15.02.2007 shifted to a warehouse in Rishra without intimation to the Respondent-Insurer. As the surveyor took in account the salvage value and made adverse observations that the Appellant-Insured failed to take reasonable preventive measures as there was a delay in mitigating the damage.
5. However, vide letter dated 07.09.2007, the Respondents repudiated the whole claim citing Clause 5 of the Inland Transit (Rail/Road) Clause A of the Insurance Policy. According to the Respondents, the coverage of the insurance had ceased once the goods were unloaded at the Shalimar Railway yard, and the loss occurred outside the period of risk covered under the policy. Clause 8 of the Insurance Policy was also invoked by the Respondents. It was alleged that the Appellant-Insured had failed to exercise reasonable care to protect the goods and breached the packaging standards by packing the maize in second hand gunny bags and basic storage norms which resulted in the direct violation of the policy terms related to the duty of the Appellants to prevent and minimise the loss.
6. Thereafter, the Appellants filed a Writ Petition in the Calcutta High Court challenging the repudiation of the claims. The High Court directed the Respondent-Insurer to furnish detailed reasons for the repudiation vide order dated 27.06.2008. In compliance with the directions of
