Page 32 - The Insurance Times September 2025

occurrence and was not based on any material worthy of The senior counsel, in a subtle manner, referred to the
verification. It may be recalled that the investigator's report Waiver and the Lacunae in the repudiation letter.
formed the basis for rejecting the claim, as stated in the
repudiation letter. The Commission relied on the surveyor's Observation of the Supreme Court
report, which was based on physical verification of the
The Supreme Court observed that the National Commission
consignment and cross-examination of various documents, made its decision based on Clause 5 (Duration Clause) and,
including the driver's endorsement at the destination point,
on that basis, rejected the claim by placing the blame on
confirming the shortage on 25.04.1998.
the complainant. The letter of repudiation dated September
20, 1999, didn't mention a single word regarding delay or
The Commission held that the Insurer's repudiation of the
the duration clause. The letter of repudiation stated that
claim was unjustified and concluded that there was no undue
the claim lodged by the complainant did not fall under the
delay in notifying the insurance company of the claim. The
State Commission determined the compensation ( as per the purview of transit loss, as indicated by the subsequent
survey report)to be approximately Rs. 43 lacs and made the investigation report.
Insurer and the carrier jointly and severally liable.
The Court further observed that it was evident the insurer
The aggrieved Insurer and the carrier filed independent had taken cognisance of the communication made by the
revisions before the National Commission. The revision of appellant and nominated a surveyor to verify the loss. Once
the carrier was rejected because it was not challenged. The the insurer has undertaken the said exercise, the Court was
Insurer sought twenty-one revisions. The National inclined to think that the insurer could not have been
Commission dismissed four revisions vide judgment order allowed to take a stand that the claim is hit by the clause
dated 6th March,2009, as these transactions pertained to about duration. The Court categorically mentioned, 'In the
open delivery. The remaining seventeen revisions were due absence of any mention in the letter of repudiation and also
to the non-intimation of the claim to the Insurer within the from the conduct of the insurer in appointing a surveyor, it
stipulated timeframe, i.e., within seven days of the vehicle's can safely be concluded that the insurer had waived the
arrival at the destination mentioned in the policy. right which was in its favour under the duration clause'.

The National Commission noted that the delivery dates The Court alluded to a decision of the High Court of Delhi in
were a crucial consideration for them. The Commission Krishna Wanti v. Life Insurance Corporation of India, wherein
stated, based on the record placed before it, that the first 'the High Court noted that if the letter of repudiation did
intimation of the claim or loss was reported to the Insurer not mention an aspect, it could not be taken as a stand
only on March 27, 1998, which was later confirmed by a when the matter was decided'.
letter dated April 3, 1998. The National Commission
observed that there was no disagreement regarding the The Court reproduced a passage from "Halsbury's Laws of
arrival dates of the different consignments in question, from England, Vol. 16(2), 4th Edn., Para 907 to bring out the
March 1, 1998, to April 11, 1998. Considering this, the meaning of the concept of waiver. The passage stated, "The
National Commission, alluding to Policy Condition 5 of the expression 'waiver' may, in law, bear different meanings. The
Inland Transit Clause, held that no policy cover existed and primary meaning has been said to be the abandonment of
the risk remained uncovered after delivery of the goods to a right in such a way that the other party is entitled to plead
the consignee. The Commission also observed that the non- the abandonment by way of confession and avoidance if the
reporting of claims within the stipulated time deprived the right is thereafter asserted, and is either express or implied
insurer of a first-hand assessment of the loss. In the process, from conduct. It may arise from a party making an election,
it set aside the orders of the State Commission. for example, whether or not to exercise a contractual
right... Waiver may also be by virtue of equitable or
The senior counsel of the insurer argued before the apex promissory estoppel; unlike waiver arising from an election,
court that the view expressed by the National Commission no question arises of any particular knowledge on the part
that the claim was untenable due to the delayed intimation of the person making the representation, and the estoppel
as mentioned in clause no. 5, of the policy is not may be suspensory only. Where the waiver is not express, it
maintainable, since a survey was conducted and in addition, may be implied from conduct which is inconsistent with the
the letter of repudiation didn't refer to or even distantly continuance of the right, without the need for writing or
touched upon any of the aspects enumerated in clause 5. for consideration moving from, or detriment to, the party

30 September 2025 The Insurance Times