Page 40 - The Insurance Times August 2025

There were three requirements that the complainant/ Company Ltd Versus Trilochan Jane and concluded that 'there
insured had to fulfil as per the policy they had taken. The was nothing to indicate an intentional and conscious
first requirement was to notify the insurer of the loss relinquishment by the respondent (insurer) of its right to
immediately, i.e., within 15 days of the loss occurring. The reject the claim on account of the delayed intimation of the
second obligation on the complainant was to submit a claim loss, by appointing a surveyor to assess the loss claimed by
for the loss or damage, giving all necessary particulars of the insured (appellant)'.
the loss, within 15 days or such other time as the insurer
might allow. The third obligation of the insured was to notify The Commission, while referring to the decision of this Court
the insurer, within six months of the date of the loss, that it (Commission) in Galada Power and Telecommunication Ltd.
intended to replace or reinstate the property that had been v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another, observed
destroyed or damaged. (The third obligation follows from that the facts of the present case differed significantly from
the Special Provison no -4 of Reinstatement Value Policy - those in Galada Power. The appellant, it may be noted here,
which states that this Memorandum shall be without force heavily relied on the judgment in the Galada Power case.
or effect if 'if the Insured fails to intimate to the Company Thus, the Commission dismissed the review petition vide
within 6 months from the date of destruction or damage or judgment and order dated 25th October, 2016.
such further time as the Company may in writing allow his
intention to replace or reinstate the property destroyed or Findings of the Supreme Court -
damaged'.
The singular question involved in these appeals is whether
the respondent (insurer) had waived the condition relating
The complainant company (insured), as per the above order,
to delay in intimation by appointing a surveyor.
breached Clause 6 of the insurance policy, i.e. the first two
1. The Hon'ble Judges noted that 1. Waiver is an
defaults referred to above. According to the third intentional relinquishment of a right, involves conscious
requirement, the complainant argued that the requirement abandonment of an existing legal right, advantage,
to notify the insurer and submit a claim within 15 days of benefit, claim or privilege, which, except for such a
the loss is superseded by Clause 4, applicable to waiver, a party could have enjoyed.
reinstatement value policies, which requires the necessary
notification to be given within six months of the date of loss. 2. It is an agreement not to assert a right. While invoking
The order maintained that there was no question of the principle of waiver, the person waiving their right
supersession of clause 6 of the policy (Standard Fire and must be fully informed of their rights and act with full
Special Perils Policy) by clause 4(3), applicable to knowledge of them, intentionally abandoning them.
reinstatement value policies. The obligation of the insured There must be a specific plea of waiver, much less of
under clause 4(3) applicable to reinstatement value policies abandonment of a right by the opposite party.
was independent. 3. In the present case, the repudiation letter dated 18th
February, 2005, of the insurer mentions clearly that the
The above ruling of the Commission was challenged before claim of the appellant was rejected as the intimation
the Supreme Court of India through Civil Appeal No. .. of the loss was not given to it immediately after the
(D.No.6048 of 2016). This Court, vide order dated 26th loss and also the requisite particulars of the loss were
February, 2016, relegated the parties before the Commission not conveyed to it within the stipulated period. Thus,
by allowing the appellant(Insured) liberty to file a review there was a breach of the terms and conditions of
petition before the Commission on the sole contention of Clause 6 of the general conditions of the Standard Fire
waiver of the condition stipulated in Clause No. 6 by the and Special Perils policy. Additionally, the surveyor's
insurer. Accordingly, the appellant filed a review petition report states that it was very difficult to estimate the
before the Commission, raising a sole issue regarding damages for the reasons mentioned therein and that
whether the respondent (insurer) had waived the condition the appellant's claim was not payable due to a breach
relating to delay in intimation by appointing a surveyor, of Clause 6 of the policy's general conditions. The insurer
which the Commission considered. incorporated the surveyor's recommendation in its
repudiation letter.
The Commission adverted (referred) to various earlier
4. The fulfilment of the stipulation in Clause 6 (No claim
decisions of the Commission, like Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. under this policy shall be payable unless the terms of
Versus Parvesh Chander Chadha, and New India Assurance
this condition have been complied with)of the general

36 August 2025 The Insurance Times