Page 55 - Insurance Times July 2024

Insurance Caselaws

The Supreme Court orders the insurer to Here, the driver had left the car unattended on a public
road with the key in the ignition, according to the insurer,
award 75% of the claim in a vehicle which rejected the claim.
theft case, holding that the breach of The Court decided that, although a certain amount of
condition must be fundamental in order negligence, there was not a serious enough violation of the
to deny the claim altogether.Supreme terms to completely reject the insurance claim. As a result,
an award of up to 75% must be given on an irregular basis.
Court: If Ship Is Sent To Sea in An
An appeal against the NCDRC judgment, which overturned
Unworthy State, Insurance Company Is the findings of the state commission and district forum

Not liable For Any Losses Caused By ordering New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (respondent) to
indemnify the claimant to the extent of 75% of the sum
Unseaworthiness. assured-$8,40,000-was being heard by the Supreme Court
bench, which is made up of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and
Case title: Ashok Kumar v. New India Assurance
KV Vishwanathan. From 2008 to 2009, the appellant was
Co. Ltd. the owner of a truck covered by a legitimate insurance
policy for Rs. 8,40,000. The appellant's automobile was taken
Summary
on June 26, 2008. He informed the respondent about the
The Supreme Court ruled in a car theft case that any policy theft and filed a FIR.
condition violation should be considered a fundamental
breach, resulting in the claimant's insurance coverage being He filed a complaint with the district forum in 2009, nearly
denied. The insurer rejected the claim due to the driver a year later, citing a failure in service and the respondent's
leaving the car unattended on a public road with the key in delay in settling the claim. Due to the delay in the
the ignition. The court decided that, although a certain proceedings, this complaint was inadvertently withdrawn,
amount of negligence was present, there was not a serious and a new one was filed. The respondent asserted that the
enough violation of the terms to completely reject the policy's terms and conditions were broken and that it was
insurance claim. As a result, an award of up to 75% must prohibited by statute. Overriding the objections, the district
be given on an irregular basis. The Supreme Court is forum awarded 75% of the pledged cash on an
currently hearing an appeal against the NCDRC judgment, unconventional basis.
which overturned the findings of the state commission and The respondent filed an appeal with the state commission,
district forum ordering New India Assurance Co. Ltd. to claiming that they were notified of the theft six days
indemnify the claimant to the extent of 75% of the sum following the incident, in violation of the policy's first
assured-$8,40,000. requirement.
About the case The appellant filed the first complaint the following day and
The Supreme Court ruled in a car theft case that any policy notified the respondent as well, according to the state
condition violation should be considered a fundamental commission, which noted that there was no delay. Regarding
breach that results in the claimant's insurance coverage the fifth condition, the commission cited Amalendu Sahoo
being denied. v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited (2010) and National

The Insurance Times July 2024 49