IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Arijit Banerjee, Rai Chattopadhyay, JJ.
National Insurance Company Limited – Appellant
Versus
Sethia Oil Industries Limited and Anr. – Respondents
APD 1 of 2020 IA NO. GA 2 of 2020 (Old No: GA 262 of 2020
Decided On : 20-08-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. legality of insurance claim denial. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. arguments on burden of proof regarding documents. (Para 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. court observed evidence supported plaintiff's claims. (Para 8 , 14 , 16) |
| 4. proof of proximate cause for insurance claims. (Para 18 , 19 , 21 , 22 , 25) |
| 5. burden of proof lies initially with claimant. (Para 24 , 26 , 27) |
| 6. admissibility of public documents and presumption. (Para 30 , 31) |
| 7. delay in notifying insurer affects claim validity. (Para 38 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 8. reliance on surveyor's report for damage claims. (Para 43 , 44) |
| 9. court's judgment partly upheld and modified. (Para 48 , 49) |
JUDGMENT :
Rai Chattopadhyay, J.
(1) A judgment of the Hon'ble Single Judge dated October 1, 2019 in CS No. 99 of 2008 is under challenge in this appeal that is, APD No. 1 of 2020. The suit involved the question of legality, propriety and justifiability of repudiation of claim for the loss and damage of the present respondent/plaintiff insured under a policy, with the appellant/insurance company; that whether the respondent/plaintiff was entitled to redemption of damages for the loss said to have suffered by the same.
(2) The respondent/plaintiff has claimed in the said suit a decree for recovery of Rs. 73,28,754.54/- against the appellants/defendants and interest at the rate of 24% per annum.
(3) The plaintiff's case before the Hon'ble Single Judge was inter alia that the plaintiff company produces and supplies rice bran oil to various parts of the country by tankers. For the purpose of transportation of such oil, the plaintiff company engages various transportation companies, to provide for oil tankers. For the purpose of indemnifying itself from any loss which may arise during transportation, the plaintiff obtained insurance policy from the appellant/defendant insurance company known as “Marine Cargo Open Policy”. Under such policy, the plaintiff was insured from loss arising from transit risk including accident etc. The insurance policy of the plaintiff was valid from the period April 04, 2003 to April 03, 2004.
(4) The consignments were dispatched on September 28, 2003 and October 10, 2003 respectively in the vehicles bearing No. WB 03A/3149 and WB 23A/4816. The plaintiff has stated in the plaint that the consignments as above were of the value of Rs. 13,20,500/- Rs. 13,70,040/- respectively. The plaintiff states and asserts that both the vehicles as above along with the entire consignment were untraceable and lost.
(5) The third consignment was carried in the vehicle No. WB 19A/3925, which was dispatched on October 12, 2003. It is stated that the same has met with an accident and the entire oil contained therein were soiled. According to the plaintiff, the value of the consignment in the vehicle which met with an accident was Rs. 13, 23, 000/-
(6) Hence, such loss and damage suffered by the plaintiff company due to the loss and accident of the vehicles respectively, the claim under the insurance policy, was raised by it, before the appellant/defendant insurance company but to no avail since the insurance company had repudiated the claim of the insured. Hence, the instant suit was filed before this Court to seek relief as described above. The claim of the plaintiff as described in the plaint itself may be produced herein below in a tabular form:-
| WB 03A/3149 | Principal amount for the First Consignment | Rs. 13,20,500.00 |
| Interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of dispatch i.e. 28.9.2003 to 7.5.2008 | Rs. 10,95,978.82 | |
| WB 23A/4816 | Principal amount for the Second Consignment | Rs. 13,70,040.00 |
| Interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of dispatch i.e. 10.10.2003 to 7.5.2008 | Rs. 11,29,663.67 | |
| WB 19A/3925 | Principal amount for the Third Consignment | Rs. 13,23,000.00 |
| Interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of dispatch i.e. 12.10.2003 to 7.5.2008 | Rs. 10,89,572.05 | |
| Total | Rs. 73,28,754.54 | |
(7) The transporter did not contest the suit. However, the appellant/defendant No.1 had contested and contended that the plaintiff violated terms of the insurance
The burden of proof in insurance claims lies with the insurer to establish policy violations, and claims cannot be repudiated without substantial evidence supporting such breaches.
The court emphasized the need for proper justification and adherence to regulations in repudiating an insurance claim, and highlighted the importance of considering expert reports and providing reaso....
(1) Adverse Claim – The law mandates that a party confronted with an adverse claim must voice its opposition; failure to do so results in a deemed acceptance of the allegations or facts asserted agai....
(1) Contract of Insurance – It is well settled that a contract of Insurance is to be honoured strictly in terms of the conditions specified in the Policy without making any alteration in the words us....
Court upheld the validity of the surveyor's report in determining insurance claims, emphasizing evidence over insurer claims of misrepresentation.
Insurance companies must provide substantial proof when denying claims; unjust repudiation leads to enforceable obligations to pay agreed amounts.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.