LexUNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. versus KANTIKA COLOUR LAB & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2010] 3 S.C.R. 204 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. KANTIKA COLOUR LAB & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 6337 of 2001 etc.) MAY 6, 2010 [D.K. JAIN AND T.S. THAKUR, JJ.] Insurance - Contract of insurance - For transit of imported goods (two machines) - Surveyors' Reports prove C that on the transit one machine got extensively damaged while the other was in working condition - Authorized representative of the manufacturer-company stating that the damaged machine could not be repaired in India - Insured claiming damage of the amount i.e. the actual cost of the o machines - National Commission held that the Insurance company and the carrier were jointly and severally liable - On appeal, held: Contracts of insurance are generally in the nature of contracts of indemnity - Except the cases of life insurance, personal accident, sickness and contingency E insurance, all other contracts of insurance entitle the insured only to the actual loss suffered, not exceeding the amount stipulated in the contract - The happening of event against which insurance cover taken by itself does not entitle the insured to claim - On facts insured not entitled to damage in F respect of the machine which was not damaged - The machine which was damaged requires complete replacement - The insured is entitled to the cost of machinf: and custom duty component paid on the said machine. Respondent No. 1 imported a Printer Process and a G Film Processor from Japan. The machines, after arrival in India, were entrusted to the carrier-respondent for onward road transportation. A pre-dispatch survey confirmed that the machines were in sound condition. Respondent No. 1 had obtained a transit insurance policy H 204 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. v. 205 KANTIKA COLOUR LAB & ORS.· from the appellant-Insurance Company. A Respondent No. 1 claimed a sum of Rs. 55 lakhs alleging that the machines got damaged in the transit. In preliminary survey, it was reported that only printing machine had suffered damage and there was no 8 apparent damage to the Film Processor. The second survey report also stated that printing machine had suffered damages and not the Film Processor. However, it opined that the damage was repairable and assessed the repair cost at Rs. 5,76,730/-. Appellant-Insurance C Company on the basis of surveyor's report, offered the amount assessed towards repairs which was refused by respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 lodged a complaint before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, D against the appellant claiming damage of Rs. 55 lakhs i.e. the cost equivalent to the machines. The Commission allowed the claim holding that the appellant-Insurance company and the respondent-carrier were jointly or severally liable to pay Rs. 53 lakhs with interest @ 10% E p.a. Appellant filed the appeal challenging the order. Respondent No. 1 also filed the appeal challenging the order to the extent of the Commission awarding 10% F interest, instead of the rate at which the insured borrowed the money from the Bank for purchase of the 1 . machines. ) ' Partly allowing the appeal of the Insurance Company, and dismissing the appeal of the insured, the Court G HELD: 1.1. Two aspects stand out from the evidence of Senior Sales and Service Engineer of the manufacturer of the machines. Firstly, it is clear that the damage has been caused only to the printer model and not to the film H / 206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 6 S.C.R A processor which was found to be in working coridition and about which there was only an apprehension and no more that its working may run into difficulty in future. There is no real basis for such an apprehension. In any case in the absence of proved damage affecting the B performance of the machine, it is difficult to assume that the film processor was also damaged either wholly or in part so as to call any repair or replacement of the said machine. [Para 18] [214-E-G] 1.2. Contracts of Insurance are generally in the C nature of contracts of indemnity. Except in the case of contracts of Life Insurance, personal accident and sickness or contracts of contingency insurance, all other contracts of insurance entitle the assured for the reimbursement of actual loss that is proved to have been D suffered by him. The happening of the event against which insurance cover has been taken does not by itself entitle the assured to claim the amount st
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.