LexUNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. versus M/S. GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. ._,...- V.- MIS. GREAT EASTERN SHIPPING CO. LTD. ,• JULY 16, 2007 B [A.K. MA THUR AND T ARUN CHA ITERJEE, JJ .] Insurance-Marine insurance policy-For import-Storage of the goods at the port~Extention of policy for up-country destinations-Destruction of c the goods during storage-Claim for insurance-Repudiated by Insurance Company-Taking plea that extended policy covered on~v transit risk and not storage risk-Consumer Commission decreed the claim-Held: In view of the extended coverage on higher premium, the policy also covered the storage risk till the goods reached its destination-Quantum of compensation D upheld-However, commencement of payment of interest modified ·- Interpretation of Documents-Interpretation of Policy-Principles- ·- Held: Jf'hile interpreting a policy, courts should keep in view intention of parties as well as words used in the policy. E Words and Phrases- 'Extend'-Meaning of Claimant-respondent, in connection with import of sugar from China to Calcutta, took a marine insur;rnce policy from the appellant-insurer. The policy was further extended for up-country destinations in India on payment of additional amount. The sugar was tern porarily stored in T-sheds at Calcutta F port en-route up-country destinations. The sugar bags got destroyed as fire t .._ broke-out in the shed. Respondent claimed the insurance for the loss. Insurance company appointed two surveyors who computed the quantum o~ compensation. The claim was not settled. Respondent filed complaint before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Insurance Company I repudiated the claim on the ground that the claim was not maintainable as G the extenstion of the policy covered only the transit risk and not the storage risk. The Commission decreed the claim ori the ground that the insurance coverage was valid till the goods were delivered to the consignees' warehouse :I r or other final warehouse or the place of storage at the destination. Commission quantified the amount of compensation accepting the report of the surveyor. H 350 U1'1TED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LID. 1·. GREAT EASTER.'! SHIPPING CO LTD 35 J -.... It granted interest @ 9% from the date of report of Surveyor. Hence the A present appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. While interpreting the policy, the courts should keep in view the intention of the parties as well as the words used in the policy. If the B intention of the parties subserves the expression used therein then the > expression used in that context should be given its full and extended meaning. In the present case, as is apparent on reading of the Institute Cargo clause and the coverage, terms of the policy and the extended coverage, the intention that appears from these terms and conditions that the goods were first covered C from port in China, destination in Calcutta port and thereafter extended coverage was sought and in that it was extended to any part of the Republic of India. If these two terms of the policy are read in conjunction then it clearly transpires that the goods are covered till they reach the destination in any part of India. If the extended cover would not be given the policy would extend to Calcutta port. If this extended coverage is not interpreted to mean that goods D' should reach the destination in any part of India, then the extended coverage on payment of higher premium would be meaningless. The coverage was sought because the final destination of the goods was not at Calcutta port. When the coverage was extended on same terms and conditions that would mean that the goods were covered till the same reached in any part of the country in India. Since the goods were covered from Calcutta port till the same reach its E destination and they were lying on storage, that would cover the goods by the extended policy and the insurer cannot defeat the claim of the claimant that the goods once reached the destination at Calcutta, the policy stood discharged. (Para 17) (363-A, 8, C, D, E, F] F Shashi Gupta (Smt.) v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Anr., (1995) Suppl. I SCC 754; Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Raj Kumar Rajgarhia and Anr., f 1999) 3 SCC 465; United India Insurance Co. Ltd v. Pushpalaya Printers, (2004) 3 SCC 694; Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd v. Sony Cher(van, (1999) 6 SCC 451; Mis. Peacock Plywood Pvt. Ltd. v. The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, JT (2
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.