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

2019 Supreme(Del) 1217

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.
BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENRAL INSURANCE CO LTD. - Appellant
Vs.
VIJAY SHAH & OTHERS - Respondent
Regular First Appeal No. 132 of 2019
Decided On : 15-02-2019

Advocates Appeared:
Neerja Sachdeva, Adv.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the coverage of an insurance policy commences from the date the premium is paid, and the delay in the issuance of the policy does not affect the coverage if the loss occurs during the currency of the policy.

Headnote:

Insurance - Loss during transit - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 96 - [CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE] - [SECTION 96] - The court analyzed the facts of the case and concluded that the loss of the insured goods during transit was covered by the insurance policy, despite the delay in the issuance of the policy. The court highlighted the receipt of the insurance premium and the investigator's report as key evidence influencing its decision.

Fact of the Case:

The plaintiff filed a suit against the insurance company for the loss of insured goods during transit. The insurance company contested the suit, claiming that the consignment had commenced its journey before the commencement of the insurance policy.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the loss occurred during the currency of the policy and that the insurance company was liable to pay the insured amount. The court emphasized the receipt of the insurance premium and the investigator's report as crucial evidence supporting the plaintiff's claim.

Issues: The issues framed in the suit were: 1. Whether there was a policy issued in favor of the plaintiff on the date of the incident? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of the suit amount? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to pendente lite and future interest? 4. Relief.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the insurance coverage commenced from the date the premium was paid, despite the delay in the issuance of the policy. The court emphasized the plaintiff's evidence of the premium payment and the investigator's conclusion that the claim was genuine.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and decreed the suit for the insurance amount in favor of the plaintiff. All pending applications were also disposed of.

JUDGMENT :

Valmiki J. Mehta, J.

Cm No. 7050/2019 (Exemption)

1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

CM stands disposed of.

CM Nos. 7049/2019 (delay in filing) & 7052/2019 (delay in refiling)

2. For the reasons stated in the applications, delays in filing and re-filing are condoned, subject to just exceptions.

CMs stand disposed of.

RFA No. 132/2019 & CM No. 7051/2019 (stay)

3. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant no.1/ insurance company in the suit impugning the Judgment of the trial court dated 29.01.2018 by which the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff/insured for a sum of Rs. 7,64,440/- along with interest at 6% from the date of the decree till realization. The suit has been decreed on account of the insured goods having been lost during the course of transit/transportation, and during the currency period of the insurance policy.

4. The facts of the case are that the respondent no. 1/plaintiff is carrying on business in the name and style of M/s Lucky Chemical Corporation. Respondent no. 1/plaintiff placed an order of supply of Industrial Solvent (Chemical) with the respondent no. 3/defendant no. 3. Respondent no. 3/Defendant no.3 supplied the material by raising Invoice No. 137 dated 16.05.2010 for a sum of Rs. 7,64,440/- and the material was given for transportation to respondent no. 2/defendant no. 2/transporter. For the goods in question, and which were to be supplied by the respondent no. 3/defendant no. 3 from its premises at Bulandshehar in Uttar Pradesh to the premises of the respondent no. 1/plaintiff in Indore, an insurance policy bearing no. OG-11-2302-1005-00000012 was taken from the appellant/ defendant no.1 by making payment of the insurance premium of Rs. 13,236/- on 15.05.2010 in cash to the agent of the appellant/defendant no. 1 namely, Mr. Mayur Pandiya. On the amount being paid in cash to the agent of the appellant/defendant no. 1 on 15.05.2010, the agent had executed the receipt for receiving of the insurance premium on the same date i.e. 15.05.2010. The appellant/defendant no. 1/insurance company by taking its own time on account of its own internal procedure, had issued the policy on 19.05.2010 for the period commencing from 18.05.2010 to 17.05.2011. The industrial solvent which was sold by the respondent no. 3/defendant no. 3 was transported through the transporter- respondent no. 2/defendant no. 2 under the GR No. 134 dated 16.05.2010. The journey of the transportation of the solvent was from Sikandrabad/Bulandshehar in Uttar Pradesh to Indore, Madhya Pradesh. After issuance of the insurance policy commencing from 18.05.2010, on 19.05.2010 the freight charges of Rs. 20,000/- were deposited through ICICI Bank in the account of the Tanker Broker, Mr. M. Ravinder Pratap Singh. Thereafter, the tanker moved to its destination i.e. to Indore. The respondent no. 3/ defendant no. 3 wrote a letter confirming that the tanker/vehicle was permitted to move at 7:30 PM on 19.05.2010. However, the tanker/vehicle never reached its destination. The respondent no. 1/plaintiff informed this factum to the transporter but no action was taken by the transporter and FIR No. 268/2010 was lodged at the Sikandrabad Police Station, however, neither the tanker nor the industrial solvent could be recovered. Respondent no. 1/plaintiff therefore lodged its claim with the appellant/defendant no. 1, but the appellant/defendant no. 1 refused to settle the claim despite the fact that the Investigation Report of its own Investigating Officer dated 03.09.2010 opined that the claim was genuine and should be paid.

5. The appellant/defendant no. 1 contested the suit and did not dispute the factum with respect to issuance of the policy having the validity period from 18.05.2010 to 17.05.2011. It was contended that the consignment had commenced its journey on 16.05.2010 at 2:40 PM from the premises of the respondent no. 3/defendant no. 3/seller. The


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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