United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s. Orient Treasures Pvt. Ltd.
|
Head Note
Civil Law - Contra Proferentem Rule
Contra Proferentem Rule - Proposal Form - Insurance Policy - Alleged that the same ambiguous - Held that there is no ambiguity in the language/wording used in clauses 4 and 5 - Language/wording of clauses 4 and 5 and the note appended thereto is clear, plain and unambiguous and carries only one meaning - Secondly, in the absence of any ambiguity, the respondent is not entitled to invoke the principle underlined in the rule of contra proferentem for interpreting the clauses of the policy - Presence of ambiguity in the language of policy being sine qua non for invocation of the contra proferentem rule, which is not present here, the said rule cannot be applied for deciding the issue involved in case.
Civil Law - Interpretation of Statute
Interpretation of Statute - Held that when the words of a statute are clear, plain or unambiguous, i.e., they are reasonably susceptible to only one meaning, the courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of consequences - In such cases no question of construction of a statue arises, for the Act speaks for itself.
Civil Law - Interpretation of Statute
Interpretation of Statute -Interpretation of Contract - Note appended to main Section - Held that whenever the NOTE is appended to the main Section, it is explanatory in nature to the main Section and explains the true meaning of the main Section and has to be read in the context of main Section -This analogy equally applies while interpreting the words used in any contract.
Civil Law - Contract of Insurance
Contract of Insurance - Jewellers Block Policy - Additional Premium - Non- payment of - It is one of the species of commercial transaction between the insurer and insured - It is for the parties (insurer/insured) to decide as to what type of insurance they intend to do to secure safety of the goods and how much premium the insured wish to pay to secure insurance of their goods as provided in the tariff - If the insured pays additional premium to the insurer to secure more safety and coverage of their insured goods, it is permissible for them to do so - In this case, the respondent did not pay any additional premium to get the coverage of even two instances mentioned to avoid rigour of note of clauses 4, 5 and clause 12 - Insurance claim rightly repudiated.
The Consumer Protection Act,1986 - Section 2 (1) , Section 14 (1)
Consumer - Insurance - Jewellers Block Policy - Insurance claim - Exclusion clause - Repudiation - Contention of behalf of appellantInsurance Company that the respondent's claim was not covered under the policy and was expressly excluded by virtue of clauses 4 and 5(b) read with clause 12 of the policy because the burglary in the shop took place in night hours and the stolen articles were kept in display window and outside the safe - Note appended to clause 4 of proposal form would go to show that the appellant (Insurance Company) had made it clear that "window display of articles at night is not covered" - This clearly meant that the insurance coverage was given to the articles kept in "window display during day time in business hours" whereas insurance coverage was not given to the articles when they were kept in "window display at night" -Impugned order passed by the National Commission liable to be set aside - As a consequence thereof, the complaint filed by the respondent against the appellant out of which this appeal arises liable to be dismissed.
Topic(s)-Consumer - Insurance - Insurer not liable