M/S. GALADA POWER AND TELECOMMUNICATION LTD. versus UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER ETC.

Citation: [2016] 4 S.C.R. 69 · Decided: 28-07-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
[2016) 4 S.C.R. 69 
MIS. GALADA POWER AND TELECOMMUNICATION LTD. 
A 
v. 
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. AND ANOTHER ETC. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 8884-8900of2010) 
JULY28, 2016 
[DIPAK MISRA AND R. F. NARIMAN, JJ.) 
Consu111er Protection Act, 1986: Insurance - Duration Clause 
- Waiver of right under, through positive conduct - Delivery of 
goods - Claim for shortage/Transit loss - In terms of Cl.5 
('"Duration") such intimation of loss was to be given to insurer within 
7 days of arrival of good1· at the destination -Appellant/ co111p/ainant 
made a claim for transit-loss with insurer beyond period of 7 days 
- Insurer appointed surveyor who concluded that there was a loss 
- Despite such report, insurer sent repudiation letter refuting 
appellant's claim stating that claim lodged by appellant did not fall 
under the purview of transit-loss - Propriety of - Held: C/.5 of the 
policy related to duration - In absence of any mention of duration 
clause in repudiation letter and from the conduct of insurer in 
appointing a surveyor despite such duration clause, the insurer 
had by positive action waived its right to invoke duration clause -
As regards the merit of the claim, the surveyor had given a report 
that there was a loss - No error found in it - Insurer was thus liable 
to pay. 
Waiver - MeaninK of - Explained. 
Allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. CI. 5 of the policy relates to "Duration". Letter 
of repudiation does not whisper a single word with regard to delay 
or, in fact, does not refer at all to duration clause of the policy. It 
states that the claim lodged by the complainant does not fall under 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
the purview of transit-loss. The insurer had taken cognizance of 
G 
communication made by the appellant and nominated a surveyor 
to verify the loss. Once the said exercise was undertaken, the 
insurer could not be allowed to take a stand that the claim was hit 
by the clause pertaining to duration. In absence of any mention 
69 
H 
70 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016) 4 S.C.R. 
A 
in letter of repudiation and also from the conduct of insurer in 
appointing a surveyor, it could be safely concluded that the 
insurer had waived the right which was in its favour under the 
duration clause. [Para 12] (75-G-H; 76-A-BJ 
Krishna Wanti v. Life Insuranr° Corporation of India 
B 
2000 (52) DRJ (DB) - app1·uved. 
c 
Manak Lal v. Dr. Prem Chand Singhvi AIR 1957 SC 
425 : 1957 SCR 575 - followed. 
Krishna Bahadur v. Purna Theatre (2004) 8 SCC 229 : 
2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 833; State of Punjab v. Davinder 
Pal Singh Bhullar (2011) 14 SCC 770 : 2011 (15) SCR 
540 - relied on. 
Hals bury s Laws of England Vol.16(2), 4•• Edn. -
referred to. 
D 
1.2. In the instant case, the insurer was in custody of the 
policy. It had prescribed clause relating to duration. It was very 
much aware about the stipulations therein, it appointed a surveyor. 
Additionally, in repudiation letter, it only stated that claim lodged 
by the insured was not falling under the purview of transit loss. 
Thus, by positive action, the insurer waived its right to advance 
-
E 
the plea that the claim was not entertainable because conditions 
-
F 
G 
enumerated in duration clause were not satisfied. The National 
Commission could Iiot have placed reliance on the said terms to 
come to the conclusion that there was no policy cover in existence 
and that the risks stood not covered after delivery of goods to 
the consignee. [Para 17] (78-E-G] 
· 
Case Law Reference 
2000 (52) DRJ (DB) 
approved 
Para 12 
1957 SCR 575 
followed 
Para 14 
2004 (3) Suppl. SCR 833 
relied on 
Para 15 
2011 (15) SCR 540 
relied on 
Para 16 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 8884-
8900 of20 I 0. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 06.01.2009 of the National 
H 
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in Revision 
M/S. GALADA POWER AND TELECOMMUNICATION LTD. 
71 
v. UNITED !NOIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. 
Petition Nos. 2774-2790 of2006. 
Rana Mukhe1jee, Sr. Adv., D. Bharat Kumar, T. Bhaskar 
Gowtham, Abhij it Sengupta, Ad vs. for the Appellant. 
Rakesh Kumar, Arun Kumar, Bipin Kumar, Prabhat Kaushik, 
Rameshwar Prasad Goyal. M. K. Dua, Advs. for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Cou11 was delivered by 
DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. The appellant-complainant filed a batch 
of2 l complaints i.e. C.D. Nos.539 to 559 of2000, claiming compensation 
ofRs.43.59 lacs along with interest@ 18% p.a. from the respondents, 
namely, United India Insurance Company Limited and In

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