Bharat Watch Company through Its Partner vs National Insurance Co. Ltd. through Its Regional Manager

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

12 April 2019

Case No.

Civil Appeal No.3912 of 2019

Result

Allowed

Bench

D.Y. Chandrachud, Hemant Gupta

Citation

[2019] 6 S.C.R. 302 : 2019 INSC 521

Headnote

Insurance:

Insurance policy – Exclusionary clause – Non-communication of, to the insured – Effect of – Insurance claim – For theft/burglary of shop – Claim was repudiated by the insurer in view of the terms of exclusion in the policy – Consumer complaint allowed by District Forum as well as by the State Commission in appeal, on the ground that exclusion would not be binding on the insured because the terms and conditions of the exclusion were not communicated to the insured – National Commission, relying on the exclusion clause, rejected the claim of the insured – In appeal, held: Terms and conditions of the exclusionary clause would have been attracted if the same were communicated to the insured – In absence of such communication, the exclusionary clause are not attracted in the present case – Order of National Commission is liable to be set aside – Appeal allowed.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harchand Rai Chandan Lal (2004) 8 SCC 644 : [2004] 4 Suppl. SCR 662 – distinguished.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission1 by its judgment dated 16 April 2015 reversed the concurrent findings arrived at by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Solapur2 and by the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra3. 3. The appellant has a showroom at Solapur in which watches are sold. The appellant had insured its stock of watches with the respondent. During the course of the night on 3 August 2001, after the shop had closed for the day, a theft occurr

View Subscription Plans →