Page 56 - Insurance Times July 2024

Insurance Company Limited v. Nitin Khandelwal (2008) to Gurgaon that left the vehicle irreparably damaged. The
conclude that, even in the event of a breach of that clause, owner obtained two forms of protection: the BMW Secure
the claim could not have been completely rejected and that, Advance Policy (the BMW Secure) and a vehicle insurance
at most, 75% of the claim would be admissible. policy from the insurer, Bajaj General Insurance Company
The appellant brought up Gurshinder Singh v. Shriram Ltd. The court found that the insurer's responsibility would
General Insurance Co. Ltd., 2021, which the Supreme Court not exceed the vehicle's IDV less the wreck, which the court
determined to be worth the entire cost of the vehicle. The
cited. The ruling stated that "mere tardiness in notifying the
insurance company about the theft cannot be a ground to court ordered the insurance to reimburse the owner for the
deny the claim of the insured when an insured has lodged difference of Rs. 3,74,012/. The appeals were partially
granted, and the State Commission's directive to replace the
the FIR immediately after the theft of a vehicle occurred
and when the police after investigation have lodged a final car was replaced with one to provide monetary
report after the vehicle was not traced and when the compensation.
surveyors/investigators appointed by the insurance company About the case
have found the theft to be genuine."
On onday, November 20, 2023, the Supreme Court
The court reaffirmed that in order to deny the claimant any reaffirmed that an insured person is limited to making claims
compensation, any infringement of the requirement must that are covered by their insurance policy. The Court further
constitute a fundamental breach. The respondent had stated that a policy's provisions, which establish the
acknowledged that theft did occur, the judge observed. insurance company's liability, must be carefully studied. A
bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Rajesh Bindal
"The Insurance Company does not claim that the claimant
noted that an insurance contract is bilateral and mutually
approved or assisted in the removal of the vehicle, in which
agreed upon, like any other commercial contract, so the rule
case that would not be considered theft in legal terms," the of contra proferentem would not apply to a commercial
statement reads. The Court decided that, although a
contract like an insurance contract. This was in reference
certain amount of negligence, there was not a serious to the recent ruling in National Insurance Company Ltd. v.
enough violation of the terms to completely reject the Chief Electoral Officer.The case facts state that the owner
insurance claim. As a result, an award of up to 75% must of a BMW had an accident in Gurgaon that left the vehicle
be given on an irregular basis. The court determined that if irreparably damaged. He had obtained two forms of
there is a contributory factor, the insurance company can protection: the BMW Secure Advance Policy (the BMW
only deduct the appropriate amount from the total and Secure) and a vehicle insurance policy from the insurer, Bajaj
cannot be entitled to more, based on the rulings of Nitin General Insurance Company Ltd.
Khandelwal and Amalendu.
According to the owner's interpretation of the two policies
BMW Vehicle Damage: Supreme Court taken together, the insured is entitled to a replacement car
Denies Replacement Claim, Says Insured if the vehicle sustains damage exceeding 75% of its insured
declared value (IDV). After the owner took the BMW 3 Series
Is Limited to Insurance Policy Coverage. 320D to the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
in Delhi, the commission ordered BMW and the insurer to
Case Title: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance compensate the owner for the whole loss of the vehicle by
Co.Ltd. V. Mukul Aggarwal, CIVIL APPEAL exchanging it for a brand-new vehicle of the same type. After
NO.1544 OF 2023 that, the insurer and BMW went to the NCDRC, which denied
their appeals. They then made their way to the Supreme
Summary Court.According to the Court's interpretation of the BMW
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that an insured person is policy, there was no explicit clause providing for the
limited to making claims covered by their insurance policy. replacement of a car in the event of a complete loss,
The court noted that an insurance contract is bilateral and constructive total loss, or vehicle theft. The Court further
mutually agreed upon, so the rule of contra proferentem concluded that when it is proven that the insurer under the
would not apply to a commercial contract like an insurance motor insurance policy has accepted the scenario of whole
contract. In National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Chief loss or constructive total loss of the car, BMW may be held
Electoral Officer, the owner of a BMW had an accident in liable under the terms of BMW Secure.

50 July 2024 The Insurance Times