Partially allowed the consumer complaint directing the Insurance Company to pay Rs.6,57,55,155/- for a fire insurance claim with 9% interest (Para 2)
The claimant leased the premises from M/s. Platinum Logistics for warehousing purpose. Claimant paid Rs.44,02,562/- to New India Assurance for safeguarding the custom bonded goods and for covering the risk against fire, etc. (Para 4)
A fire broke out at the insured warehouse. (Para 5)
Therefore, looking at the policy documents, the Leave & License Agreement and various communications received from the customs, police, fire & electricity departments, it is reasonable to conclude that the insured premises was the one that was identified and insured at Survey No. 9/3, by the insurance company. Needless to say, there is nothing to conclude that the area where the fire occurred on 14.03.2018 was not covered by the said insurance policy. (Para 35)
In this case, the insured had undertaken repairs on the rooftop to prevent water leakage to the warehouse. Such essential repair work on the rooftop by itself, cannot be reasonably construed to be an alteration that would increase the risk of loss or damage, as has been urged by the insurance company. (Para 37)
The above provision mandates that claims above Rs. 20,000 must be initially assessed by an approved surveyor. It is noteworthy that the insurer has the discretion to settle the claim for a different amount, than what is assessed by the surveyor. (Para 43)
The reports furnished by the claimant, which include assessments by government departments and two independent surveyors, have however consistently identified the cause of the fire as a shortcircuit. While it is difficult to go by the reports relied upon by the insurance company, the reports furnished by the claimants being consistent and logical are more acceptable in ascertaining the true cause of the fire. (Para 48)
The key question here is whether the insurance claim should include the customs duty amount of Rs. 2,13,00,061.01/- as claimed by the respondent. The insurance company argued that customs duty should not be included because the Customs Act, 1962 specifies that only the importer of goods is liable to pay customs duty when they file a bill of entry. (Para 53)
The heart & soul of an insurance contract lies in the protection it accords to those who wish to be insured by it. This understanding encapsulates the foundational belief that insurance accords protection & indemnification, preserving the sanctity of trust within its clauses. Effectively, the insurer assumes a fiduciary duty to act in good faith and honour their commitment. This responsibility becomes particularly pronounced when the insured, in their actions, have not been negligent. In light of the vital role that trust plays in insurance contracts, it is important to ensure that the insurer adequately fulfils the duty that has been cast on it, by virtue of such a covenant. (Para 57)
The customs duty component of the claim should, in the given event, be discharged directly to the Customs Department. All other legal consequences will follow on upholding the claim of the insured against the appellants. (Para 58)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2023 STPL(Web) 440 SC
[2023 INSC 1022]
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. Vs. M/S. Mudit Roadways
Civil Appeal No. 339 of 2023-Decided on 24-11-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/2023-STPLWeb-440-SC.pdf
