SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Cal) 250

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Malay Kumar Ghosh, Ld. Senior Adv., Mr. Saumyen Dutta, Adv., Ms. Dolon Das Gupta, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sakya Sen, Ld. Senior Adv., Mr. Rudrajit Sarkar, Adv., Mr. Jai Kumar Surana, Adv., Mr. Abhimanyu Roy, Adv., Ms. Vanshika Newar, Adv.

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.

Headnote:(A) Insurance Act, 1938 - Principles of utmost good faith - Contracts of insurance - The repudiation of claims by the defendant insurance company on grounds of alleged breaches of policy terms, including overloading and delayed reporting, were rejected. The court reaffirmed that the insurer bears the burden of proof to establish grounds for repudiation. (Paras 8, 21, 38, 40, 46)

(B) Limitation Act, 1963 - The court found that the plaintiff's claims were within the limitation period and supported by evidence, addressing defenses raised by the insurance company related to delay and proof of loss. (Paras 8, 30, 36)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought recovery of Rs. 73,28,754.54/- for loss due to untraceable consignments under a marine insurance policy, but the insurance company repudiated the claim alleging policy violations by the plaintiff regarding overloading and delayed reporting of the incidents. (Paras 1-6)

Findings of Court:
The court ruled that the plaintiff's claims were justifiable under the insurance policy, and the insurance company failed to substantiate its claim of breach of terms; the plaintiff was awarded a principal sum of Rs. 40,13,540/- with interest. (Paras 8, 48)

Issues: Whether the repudiation of the insurance claim was justified based on alleged breaches of policy terms, especially concerning delays and overloading. (Paras 6, 7, 10, 21)

Ratio Decidendi: The insurer must prove the applicability of exclusion clauses in the event of a claim; the delay in reporting and overloading allegations by the insurer did not absolve them from liability as they did not substantiate their claims effectively. (Paras 8, 40, 46)

Result: Appeal partly allowed; claims regarding two vehicles were rejected, while the claim for the third vehicle was upheld.

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/3149Principal amount for the First ConsignmentRs. 13,20,500.00
Interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of dispatch i.e. 28.9.2003 to 7.5.2008Rs. 10,95,978.82
WB 23A/4816Principal amount for the Second ConsignmentRs. 13,70,040.00
Interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of dispatch i.e. 10.10.2003 to 7.5.2008Rs. 11,29,663.67
WB 19A/3925Principal amount for the Third ConsignmentRs. 13,23,000.00
Interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of dispatch i.e. 12.10.2003 to 7.5.2008Rs. 10,89,572.05
TotalRs. 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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top