HIND OFFSHORE PVT. LTD. versus IFFCO – TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

Citation: [2023] 12 S.C.R. 959 · Decided: 09-08-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.S. BOPANNA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 12 S.C.R. 959 : 2023 INSC 697
959
CASE DETAILS
HIND OFFSHORE PVT. LTD.
v.
IFFCO – TOKIO GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 7228 of 2015)
AUGUST 09, 2023
[A.S. BOPANNA AND M.M. SUNDRESH, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: NCDRC whether justifi ed in passing the 
impugned order holding that the respondent-insurance company was under 
no contractual or legal obligation to reimburse the appellant for the loss 
suff ered by it on account of sinking of the vessel as the Class Certifi cate 
was obtained by the appellant by concealing vital information, with respect 
to the damage to the vessel, from the Classifi cation Society.
Consumer Protection – Marine Hull Insurance Policy – Non-
reporting of the damage/defects to the Classifi cation Society before 
issue of the certifi cate, class Certifi cate if rendered invalid though issued 
earlier – Whether the owner is to inform this aspect or whether the 
verifi cation by the insurer is warranted – Warranty class, if violated:
Held: In the instant case, prior to the instant policy(covering the 
period between 09.11.2006 to 08.11.2007), the vessel was covered under 
a policy for the period 09.11.2005 to 08.11.2006 – During the subsistence 
of the earlier insurance policy, there was a damage to the engine crank 
shaft and connecting rods and on the recommendation for replacement, the 
insurer-respondent had reimbursed the amount for that purpose – Though the 
immediate voyage with repairs were brought to the knowledge of the insurer, 
the replacement was to be made in due course – No material brought on 
record by the appellant to indicate that the damage to the engine crank shaft 
which was required to be replaced and on account of which payment was 
obtained, was replaced or if it had not been replaced, whether it was reported 
to American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) so that the Classifi cation Society 
960
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 12 S.C.R.
would have thereafter assessed as to whether even in that circumstance 
where the replacement had not been made, whether the repairs carried out 
were suffi  cient to certify the seaworthiness of the vessel – On being aware, 
an informed decision was to be taken to issue the Class Certifi cate – Entire 
onus cannot be on the insurer to check as to whether subsequently the engine 
had been replaced by utilising the amount received – In such situation 
when the replacement, in fact was not made, the onus was entirely on the 
appellant to bring it to the notice of the Classifi cation Society and in that 
circumstance when the Class Certifi cate was issued, the warranty class had 
in fact been violated by the appellant and the exclusion as indicated would 
apply and make it invalid – Appellant failed to establish that the warranty 
class had not been breached by them and in that context the seaworthiness 
or otherwise at the point of accident is not of relevance – Impugned order 
passed by NCDRC does not call for interference – Marine Insurance Act, 
1963. [Paras 18 and 24] 
Marine Insurance Act, 1963 – ss.35, 37, 41(5) and 55 – Warranties 
requirement – Rules for Building and Classing:
Held: If the requirement is not complied with, then the insurer is 
discharged from liability as from the date of breach of warranty but without 
prejudice to any liability incurred before that date. In a time policy, there is 
no implied warranty that the ship shall be seaworthy at any stage but where 
with the privity of the assured, the ship is sent to sea in an unseaworthy state, 
the insurer is not liable for any loss attributable to unseaworthiness – In view 
of the warranty requirement, the assured is expected to bring to the notice of 
the Classifi cation Society the shortcomings or the defects if any, before the 
issue of such Class Certifi cate since the insurance coverage to be provided 
by the insurer is based on such Class Certifi cate which is assumed to have 
been issued by the Classifi cation Society after keeping in view all aspects 
including the defects if any brought to their notice. [Para 16]
Consumer Protection – Marine Hull Insurance Policy – Surveyor 
recommended rejection of the claim of the appellant – Plea of the 
appellant that the word of the surveyor is not fi nal:
Held: Such plea would not assist the appellant – The surveyor 
recommended rejection of the claim mainly on the reason that the earlier 
defect with reference to seaworthiness was not brought to the notice of 
961
the Classifi cation Society – It is in that regard the

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.