RAJANKUMAR & BROS Vs. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE emphatic view taken by the Hon 'ble Apex Court is that in a contract of insurance, the rights and obligations are governed by the said terms of the contract. Therefore, the terms of a contract of insurance have to be strictly construed and no exception can be made on the ground of equity. In interpreting the documents relating to a contract of insurance, the duty of the Court is to interpret the 'words ', in which the contract is expressed by the parties because, it is not for the court to make a new contract, however reasonable, if the parties have not made it themselves. It needs little emphasis that in construing the terms of the contract of insurance, the 'words ' used therein, must be given paramount importance and it is not open for the Court to add, delete or substitute any words. It is also well settled that since upon issuance of an insurance policy, the insurer undertakes to indemnify the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks covered by the policy, its terms have to be strictly construed to determine the extent of liability of the insurer. Therefore, the endeavor of the court should always be to interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties. This view was taken in a catena of judgments by the Hon 'ble Supreme Court in Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Anr., (2010) 10 SCC 567, General Assurance Society Ltd. Vs. Chandmull Jain, 1966 ACJ 267 (SC) 23, Harchand Rai Chandan Lal 's case, 2005 ACJ 570 (SC), etc.

(2.) THE main question in this case swirls around the question whether the consumer complainant has stated the truth in this case. It must be borne in mind that insurance policy is a contract of insurance falling under the category of contract of uberrimae fidei, meaning thereby, a contract of utmost good faith, by the assured. [Satwant Kaur Sandhu Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd., IV (2009) CPJ 8 (SC)].

(3.) HANGZHOU Cogeneration (Hong Kong) Co. Ltd. through M/s. Kirtanlal and Sons, shipped 80 -prime hot rolled steel coils weighing 2000 MT on Board the Vessel Khalijia -III from the Caofeidian Port, China to the complainant for discharge at Mumbai Port cargo totally valued at USD 1263712.50 for the said consignment under Bill of Lading No.K -4, dated 11.06.2010 and issued their commercial Invoice dated 07.06.2010 to the complainant. The above said Sellers negotiated the shipping documents, including the certificate that the said Vessel was registered with approved classification Society as per the Institute Classification Clause and Class Maintained equivalent to Lloyds 100 AI and that the said Vessel was sea -worthy which was not more than 30 years ' old. The shipping details were furnished to M/s. Sun Insurance Brokers Ltd., of the OP, with a request to issue the policy, who, in turn, vide its letter dated 02.07.2010, forwarded the same to the OP against the cover note Ex. 'D'. The OP accepted the above said particulars and specified that the above said particulars and specified that the cover issued was as per the Insurance Cargo Clause 'A'. No other terms and conditions, clauses and/or warranties were attached thereto. The premium was accepted.