Supreme Court of India
SOHOM SHIPPING PVT. LTD.versusM/S THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. & ANR.
- Citation
- 2025 INSC 453
- Decided
- 6 April 2025
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- B V NAGARATHNA
Holding
The special condition was non‑material and had been implicitly waived, so the insurer could not repudiate the claim on its breach.
Summary
Sohom Shipping Pvt. Ltd. insured a single voyage of its barge Srijoy II from Mumbai to Kolkata with New India Assurance for the period 16 May‑15 June 2013, subject to a special condition that the voyage must commence and be completed before the monsoon sets in. The vessel departed on 6 June 2013, was forced to anchor due to bad weather and engine failure, and later ran aground; the insurer repudiated the claim on the ground that the vessel had set sail after the monsoon began, alleging breach of the special condition. The appellant challenged the repudiation before the NCDRC under Section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, arguing that the condition was non‑material, ambiguous and had been implicitly waived. The Supreme Court examined the literal meaning of the condition, the DGS circular defining the foul‑weather period, and the rule of contra proferentem, concluding that the clause was clear but its strict enforcement would render the insurance contract absurd and therefore it could not be treated as a condition precedent. The Court held that the special condition was non‑material and had been waived, so the insurer could not deny liability on that basis. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the NCDRC order set aside, and the matter remanded to the NCDRC to determine the amount payable.
Issues considered
- The validity, interpretation and materiality of the special condition requiring the voyage to commence and complete before monsoon sets in.
- Whether breach of the special condition justifies repudiation of the insurance claim.
- Whether the clause is ambiguous and should be construed contra proferentem.
- Whether the doctrine of uberrima fides was compromised by the appellant.
Legislation cited
- Consumer Protection Act, 2019s. 21, s. 67
Headnote
Issue for Consideration The present dispute hinges on the phrase “voyage should commence & complete before monsoon sets in”, a special condition contained in the contract for insurance between the parties, and raises questions regarding its validity, interpretation the special condition in the policy schedule for voyage insurance stands breached justifying the de facto repudiation of the appellant’s claim by the respondent. Headnotes† Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – s.67 – Insurance Contract – The appellant company insured
Subjects
Doctrine of Uberrima FideiContra proferentumInsurance contractVoyage should commence & complete before monsoon sets inSpecial condition in insurance contractPolicy Schedule for Voyage InsuranceFoul weather
Judgment
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 33 : 2025 INSC 453
Sohom Shipping Pvt. Ltd.
v.
M/s The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
(Civil Appeal No. 2323 of 2021)
07 April 2025
[B.V. Nagarathna and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The present dispute hinges on the phrase “voyage should
commence & complete before monsoon sets in”, a special condition
contained in the contract for insurance between the parties, and
raises questions regarding its validity, interpretation and materiality.
Whether, the special condition in the policy schedule for voyage
insurance stands breached justifying the de facto repudiation of
the appellant’s claim by the respondent.
Headnotes†
Consumer Protection Act, 2019 – s.67 – Insurance Contract –
The appellant company insured its voyage and the vessel
with the respondent insurance company – The insurance
contract contained a special condition that the “voyage
should commence & complete before the monsoon sets
in” – The vessel undertook voyage on 06.06.2013 and on the
very next day it got anchored due to bad weather and engine
failure – The insurance claim of the appellant was repudiated
on the ground that the vessel set sail after monsoon set in
thereby breaching the special condition in the insurance
contract – NCDRC dismissed the complaint of the appellant
on account of the doctrine of Uberrima fidei (good faith)
being compromised – Correctness:
Held: There is no doubt that the policy was taken for a period
of one month (16.05.2013 to 15.06.2013) to cover the voyage
from Mumbai to Kolkata – Further, as per the DGS Circular,
foul weather commences on 1st May itself on the East Coast –
The respondent’s contention that they had no knowledge of the
voyage and that they believed that the Vessel would be laid up
at the Kolkata harbour during the foul season is unacceptable
* Author
34 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
and is to be rejected – The appellant had mentioned in the form
that the purpose of insurance is to undertake the voyage from
Ghodbunder Jetty in Mumbai to Kolkata harbour – The only logical
conclusion of the information provided is that the insurance was
availed to cover the foul weather period along the west and east
coast – Even if the voyage was undertaken immediately, i.e. on
16.05.2013, the Vessel would have arrived at the Kolkata harbour
in the first week of June 2013, i.e. after the commencement of
foul weather season on the east coast – There is absolutely no
permutation and combination in which the appellant could have
fulfilled this condition under the policy, given its voyage from
Mumbai (west coast) to Kolkata (east coast) via several coastal
States – Further, the special condition necessitates that the voyage
commences and is completed before monsoon sets in – If the
condition is to be interpreted strictly, then the assured would be
unable to make a claim in case of a marine accident where the
vessel is unable to complete its voyage due to a peril, rendering
the special condition impossible to comply with – Ultimately, the
assured would be without any remedy under the insurance – This
amounts to an absurdity, vitiating the very purpose behind an
insurance contract – As a result, the special condition cannot be
treated as a condition precedent to waive any liability under the
policy – It has been impliedly waived by the parties due to its
non-material nature – In the instant case, the respondent is not
entitled to repudiate the claim of the appellant on the ground of
breach of the special condition – The matter is remanded to the
NCDRC with a direction to determine the extent of the insured sum
liable to be paid by the respondent to the appellant. [Paras 18, 21]
Insurance – Interpretation of Insurance contract – Uberrima
Fides:
Held: It is trite to state that the interpretation of the Insurance
Contract falls upon the same principles as the interpretation of
any contract, except that there exists a requirement of uberrima
fides, i.e. good faith on part of the assured – It is therefore
well-settled that the policy and all the terms therein ought to be
construed strictly, to the extent possible. [Para 11]
Rule of Construction – Contra proferentem – Discussed.
[Para 15]
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 35
Sohom Shipping Pvt. Ltd. v.
M/s The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
Case Law Cited
General Assurance Society Ltd. v. Chandumull Jain & Anr. [1966]
3 SCR 500; Industrial Promotion and Investment Corporation of
Orissa Ltd. v. New India Assurance Company Ltd. & Anr. (2016)
15 SCC 315 – relied on.
Dawsons Ltd. v. Bonnin [1992] 2 A.C. 413; Ramji Karamsi v.
The Unique Motor and General Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 1951
Bom 347; Sea Lark Fisheries v. United India Insurance Co. &
Anr. [2008] 2 SCR 346 : (2008) 4 SCC 131; Deokar Exports (P)
Ltd. v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [2008] 14 SCR 1 : (2008)
14 SCC 598; Contship Container Lines Ltd. v. D.K. Lall & Ors.
[2010] 3 SCR 460 : (2010) 4 SCC 256; Rajankumar & Brothers
(Impex) v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. [2020] 6 SCR 163: (2020)
4 SCC 364; Hind Offshore (P) Ltd. v. IffcoTokio General Insurance
Co. Ltd. [2023] 12 SCR 959 : (2023) 9 SCC 407 – referred to.
List of Acts
Consumer Protection Act, 2019.
List of Keywords
Doctrine of Uberrima Fidei; Contra proferentum; Insurance contract;
Voyage should commence & complete before monsoon sets in;
Special condition in insurance contract; Policy Schedule for Voyage
Insurance; Foul weather.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2323 of 2021
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.04.2021 of the National
Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in CC No.
101 of 2015
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Huzefa Ahmadi, Siddharth Bhatnagar, Sr. Advs., Amol Chitale,
Ms. Sonia Dube, Ms. Kanchan Yadav, Tanishq Sharma, Ms. Saumya
Sharma, Ashray Chopra, M/S. Legal Options.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Devadutt Kamat, Sr. Adv., Nikhil Jain, Abhishek Gola, Anshul Mehral,
Ms. Sayatani, Ms. Divya Jain
36 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Satish Chandra Sharma, J.
1. The present dispute hinges on the phrase “voyage should commence
& complete before monsoon sets in” contained in the contract for
insurance between the parties, and raises questions regarding its
validity, interpretation and materiality.
2. The appeal before us has been preferred by the Appellant under
Section 67 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (hereinafter “COPRA”)
against the final judgement and order dated 13.04.2021 (hereinafter
“Impugned Order”) passed by the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission, New Delhi (hereinafter “NCDRC”) dismissing
the consumer complaint filed by the Appellant herein on account of
the doctrine of Uberrima Fidei being compromised.
3. Factual Background
3.1 The Appellant is engaged in the shipping business and has
its offices at Sougor Road Kulpi, Diamond Harbour, Haldia
and Kolkata. The Appellant purchased a newly built barge
‘Srijoy II’ (hereinafter “the Vessel”) and sought to undertake
its maiden voyage from Mumbai to Kolkata.
3.2 In pursuance of the same, the Appellant applied for a
‘single voyage permit’ to the Director General of Shipping
(hereinafter “DGS”), wherein the Vessel was expected to
sail from Mumbai on 30.04.2013 and arrive at Kolkata
on 15.05.2013. The DGS directed the Indian Register of
Shipping (hereinafter “IRS”) to carry out a detailed inspection.
3.3 The Appellant sought to insure its voyage and the Vessel,
and submitted its insurance proposal to the Respondent.
Thereafter, an insurance contract was entered into between
the parties for the period between 16.05.2013 to 15.06.2013
(hereinafter “the Insurance Contract”). The Insurance
Contract contained a special condition that the “voyage
should commence & complete before monsoon sets in”.
Further, it contained Special Warranties, inter alia that the
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 37
Sohom Shipping Pvt. Ltd. v.
M/s The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
“Vessel to depart in local weather condition not exceeding
Beaufort Scale No. 4…”.
3.4 The IRS granted clearance to the Appellant to undertake
its voyage in accordance with MS Circular No. 03 of 2008.
Thereafter, the DGS issued a “No objection” with respect
to the same.
3.5 The Vessel undertook the voyage on 06.06.2013.
Unfortunately, on the very next day it was anchored off
near Ratnagiri Port due to bad weather and engine failure.
Ultimately, the Vessel ran aground.
3.6 The Appellant sought assistance from the Respondent
for towing and salvaging the Vessel after the Insurance
Contract had expired. On 25.07.2013, the Appellant issued
a ‘Notice of Abandonment’ to the Respondent claiming total
loss on the ground that repair of the Vessel would be more
expensive than the amount insured for.
3.7 On 12.09.2013, the Respondent issued a ‘Repudiation
Notice’ rejecting the claim of the Appellant on the ground
that the Vessel set sail after ‘monsoon set in’ breaching the
special condition in the Insurance Contract. Subsequently,
the surveyor appointed by the Respondent issued its final
report concluding that the Appellant was in wilful breach
of the condition.
3.8 Aggrieved by the repudiation of the insurance claim, the
Appellant herein filed a consumer complaint under Section
21 of COPRA before the NCDRC. Vide Impugned Order
dated 13.04.2021, the NCDRC dismissed the complaint on
the ground that the Appellant suppressed material facts by
not disclosing all its plans to the Respondent, and did not
conduct itself in good faith.
4. Submissions by the Appellant
4.1 Mr. Huzefa Ahmadi, learned Sr. Counsel for the Appellant
has strongly urged before us that the conclusion drawn
by the NCDRC is contrary to law and prays for the same
to be set aside.
38 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
4.2 The primary contention of the Appellant is that the
Respondent knew or should have known that the policy
period covers the foul period, and therefore the policy
cannot stand repudiated on this ground.
4.3 That the special condition contained in the insurance
contract was non-material as the Respondent was aware
that the voyage was to be undertaken in foul weather.
Further, in the event that the special condition is to be
taken into account, there has been an implied waiver
of the same at the time of entering into the contract as
the period of 1 month for which the insurance cover was
availed of, covers the foul weather period as well, and
the Respondent was aware that the Vessel would be
travelling from Mumbai to Kolkata through Kerala, where
the monsoon sets in on June 1st.
4.4 That the Court must apply the common law rule of verba
chartarum fortius accipiuntur contra proferentem or simply
put ‘Contra Proferentum’ against the Respondent as the
phrase is ambiguous on account of extrinsic evidence of
surrounding circumstances (Reliance placed on General
Assurance Society Ltd. v. Chandumull Jain & Anr.
(1966) 3 SCR 500; Industrial Promotion and Investment
Corporation of Orissa Ltd. v. New India Assurance
Company Ltd. & Anr. (2016) 15 SCC 315; Dawsons Ltd.
v. Bonnin [1992] 2 A.C. 413.
4.5 The Appellant has also submitted that the Respondent failed
its duty to conduct reasonable due diligence as it provided
the policy knowing the circumstances.
4.6 That if the special condition is treated as a condition
precedent, it would result in absurd consequences as any
claim made would fall foul of the special condition (Reliance
placed on Ramji Karamsi v. The Unique Motor and
General Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 1951 Bom 347.
5. Submissions by the Respondent
5.1. Mr. Devadatt Kamat, learned Sr. Counsel for the Respondent
has placed strong reliance on the Impugned Order as a
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 39
Sohom Shipping Pvt. Ltd. v.
M/s The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
well-reasoned, valid and legal order which ought not to be
interfered with.
5.2. That the Appellant has breached the special condition by
setting sail after monsoon had set in. Clause 3.1.2 of the
Insurance Contract was also breached by the Appellant
inasmuch as it breached the conditions imposed by the
IRS, by sailing in waters where the height of the wave is
more than 2 metres.
5.3. The counsel for the Respondent submits that the special
condition is determinable and precise, which dispels
all arguments regarding its ambiguity and in-turn the
applicability of the rule of Contra Proferentum.
5.4. That the Appellant has committed forgery and fabricated the
policy it submitted to the authorities as no amendment to the
special condition has been carried out between the parties.
5.5. That as per the DGS Notice No. 03/2008, the foul weather
season starts on 1st June, and the policy was valid from
16.05.2013 to 15.06.2013.
5.6. That no statement was made in the application by the
Appellant regarding its intention to set sail in the foul season.
5.7. The Respondent has also placed reliance on the judgements
of this Court, namely, Sea Lark Fisheries v. United India
Insurance Co. & Anr. (2008) 4 SCC 131; Deokar Exports
(P) Ltd. v New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2008) 14 SCC
598; Contship Container Lines Ltd. v. D.K. Lall & Ors.
(2010) 4 SCC 256; Rajankumar & Brothers (Impex) v.
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. (2020) 4 SCC 364; and Hind
Offshore (P) Ltd. v. Iffco-Tokio General Insurance Co.
Ltd. (2023) 9 SCC 407.
Discussion and Analysis
6. We have given our careful consideration to the submissions made
on both sides of the bar, and perused the materials provided. The
only question which falls for our consideration is, whether, the special
condition stands breached justifying the de facto repudiation of the
Appellant’s claim by the Respondent.
40 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
7. At this juncture, it would be appropriate to consider the conditions
in the proposal, upon which the Respondent relies to repudiate the
claim of the Appellant. Firstly, the ‘Special Conditions’ in the ‘Policy
Schedule for Voyage Insurance’ provides that:
“Subject to 1) institute voyage clause 01.08.1989
2) express 1% of S.I. with the warranty that the voyage
should commence & complete before monsoon sets in.”
8. Under ‘Voyage Details’ the Appellant mentions the voyage to be
undertaken from “Mumbai to Kolkata”. ‘Special Warranties’ stipulates
as under:
“Vessel to depart in local weather condition not exceeding
Beaufort Scale No. 4 & favourable synoptic meterological
situation. The master to exercise his discretion to alter
course & speed or to enter port of refuge/shelter in case
of adverse weather sea conditions/weather warings
emergency/navigational hazard. The relevant national &
international regulations regarding lights, ags & shapes
should be complied with.”
9. Further, Clause 3 of the Insurance Contract provides:
“3. CLASSIFICATION
3.1 It is the duty of the Assured, Owners and Managers at
the inception of and throughout the period of this insurance
to ensure that
3.1.1 the vessel is classed with a Classification Society
agreed by the Underwriters and that her class within that
Society is maintained,
3.1.2 any recommendations requirements or restrictions
imposed by the vessel’s Classification Society
which relate to the vessel’s seaworthiness or to her
maintenance in a seaworthy condition are complied
with by the dates required by that Society.
3.2 In the event of any breach of the duties set out in Clause
3.1 above, unless the Underwriters agree to the contrary
in writing, they will be discharged from liability under this
insurance as from the date of the breach provided that if the
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 41
Sohom Shipping Pvt. Ltd. v.
M/s The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
vessel is at sea at such date the Underwriters’ discharge
from liability is deferred until arrival at her next port.”
(emphasis supplied)
10. The Respondent has relied upon Clause 3.1.2 and the breach of the
special condition contained in the policy to justify the repudiation of
the Insurance Contract.
11. It is trite to state that the interpretation of the Insurance Contract
falls upon the same principles as the interpretation of any contract,
except that there exists a requirement of uberrima fides, i.e. good
faith on part of the assured. It is therefore well-settled that the policy
and all the terms therein ought to be construed strictly, to the extent
possible.
12. We now proceed to interpret the phrase “before monsoon sets in”
as contained in the ‘Special Conditions’ under the policy. A literal
interpretation reflects that this phrase refers to an event occurring
before monsoon commences or begins. In order to assist us further,
both parties have relied on a circular dated 25.04.2008 published
by the DGS (hereinafter “the DGS Circular”) delineating the foul
weather period. The same is reproduced below:
“3.1 During the period of foul weather, being 1st June till
31st August in the Arabian Sea along the West Coast and
1st May till November in the Bay of Bengal along the East
Coast of the Indian Peninsula.”
Accordingly, foul weather first arrives in the East Coast on 1st May and
thereafter on the West Coast on 1st June. The correct interpretation of
the phrase would then entail that the requisite event is to occur before
the 1st of May or the 1st of June respectively, depending on the coast.
13. We straightaway deal with the argument of the Appellant that the
special condition is ambiguous leading to it being construed contra
proferentum. The common law rule of interpreting the clause against
the maker of the contract in case of ambiguity has been well adopted
into the Indian legal framework. In the case of Chandumull Jain
(supra), the Supreme Court observed:
“11. …In other respects there is no difference between a
contract of insurance and any other contract except that in
42 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
a contract of insurance there is a requirement of uberrima
fides i.e., good faith on the part of the assured and the
contract is likely to be construed contra proferentem that
is against the company in case of ambiguity or doubt.”
14. It is the case of New India Assurance (2016) (supra) that expounded
on the principle and rejected its application in the facts of that case.
The relevant portion is extracted below:
“10. We proceed to deal with the submission made by
counsel for the Appellant regarding the rule of contra
proferentem. The Common Law rule of construction “verba
chartarum fortius accipiuntur contra proferentem” means
that ambiguity in the wording of the policy is to be resolved
against the party who prepared it. MacGillivray on Insurance
Law deals with the rule of contra proferentem as follows:
“The contra proferentem rule of construction
arises only where there is a wording employed
by those drafting the clause which leaves the
court unable to decide by ordinary principles of
interpretation which of two meanings is the right
one. One must not use the rule to create the
ambiguity – one must find the ambiguity first.
The words should receive their ordinary and
natural meaning unless that is displaced by a
real ambiguity either appearing on the face of
the policy or, possibly, by extrinsic evidence of
surrounding circumstances.”
11. Colinvaux’s Law of Insurance propounds the contra
proferentem rule as under:
“Quite apart from contradictory clauses in
policies, ambiguities are common in them and
it is often very uncertain what the parties to
them mean. In such cases the rule is that the
policy, being drafted in language chosen by the
insurers, must be taken most strongly against
them. It is construed contra proferentes, against
those who offer it. In a doubtful case the turn of
the scale ought to be given against the speaker,
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 43
Sohom Shipping Pvt. Ltd. v.
M/s The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
because he has not clearly and fully expressed
himself. Nothing is easier than for the insurers to
express themselves in plain terms. The assured
cannot put his own meaning upon a policy, but,
where it is ambiguous, it is to be construed in
the sense in which he might reasonably have
understood it. If the insurers wish to escape
liability under given circumstances, they must
use words admitting of no possible doubt.
But a clause is only to be contra proferentes in
cases of real ambiguity. One must not use the
rule to create an ambiguity. One must find the
ambiguity first. Even where a clause by itself is
ambiguous if, by looking at the whole policy, its
meaning becomes clear, there is no room for
the application of the doctrine. So also where
if one meaning is given to a clause, the rest of
the policy becomes clear, the policy should be
construed accordingly.”
(emphasis supplied)
15. As per the aforementioned rule, we are unable to find that the
special condition contained in the policy is ambiguous per se. As
demonstrated above, the policy can be construed literally, wherein the
special condition envisages the voyage to be started and completed
before the monsoon/foul weather season commences. The Appellant
has attempted to introduce ambiguity in the condition by bringing in
external factors and considerations, which is impermissible under
the rule of contra proferentum. The said rule only applies to cases of
real ambiguity, where the clause by itself is ambiguous irrespective
of any external considerations. Accordingly, we find no ambiguity in
the text of the policy itself. However, the rejection of the applicability
of the rule of contra proferentum does not prejudice the case of the
Appellant on the counts of validity and materiality of the condition itself.
16. Mr. Kamat has placed before us the proposal form filled by the
Appellant, to submit that no statement was made therein regarding
its intention to set sail in the foul season. It is argued that in response
to the question stating “Will the vessel be laid up during the South
44 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
West or North East Monsoon? If so, please state (a) where she will
be laid up; and (b) period for which she will laid up”, the Appellant
has answered “At Kolkata Harbour”. It is then to be concluded that
during the foul season, the Vessel will be laid up and not undertake
the voyage. Accordingly, it is submitted that the doctrine of uberrima
fides has been compromised on account of the Appellant’s conduct.
17. In response, Mr. Ahmadi has stated that in the proposal form it is
mentioned that “the insurance is required to undertake delivery voyage
from Ghodbunder Jetty to Kolkata harbour” and the insurance period
is from 16.05.2013 to 15.06.2013.
18. There is no doubt that the policy was taken for a period of one month
(16.05.2013 to 15.06.2013) to cover the voyage from Mumbai to
Kolkata. Further, as per the DGS Circular, foul weather commences
on 1st May itself on the East Coast. The Respondent’s contention
that they had no knowledge of the voyage and that they believed
that the Vessel would be laid up at the Kolkata harbour during the
foul season is unacceptable and is to be rejected. The Appellant
had mentioned in the form that the purpose of insurance is to
undertake the voyage from Ghodbunder Jetty in Mumbai to Kolkata
harbour. The only logical conclusion of the information provided is
that the insurance was availed to cover the foul weather period
along the west and east coast. Even if the voyage was undertaken
immediately, i.e. on 16.05.2013, the Vessel would have arrived at
the Kolkata harbour in the first week of June 2013, i.e. after the
commencement of foul weather season on the east coast. There is
absolutely no permutation and combination in which the Appellant
could have fulfilled this condition under the policy, given its voyage
from Mumbai (west coast) to Kolkata (east coast) via several coastal
States. Further, the special condition necessitates that the voyage
commences and is completed before monsoon sets in. If the condition
is to be interpreted strictly, then the assured would be unable to
make a claim in case of a marine accident where the vessel is
unable to complete its voyage due to a peril, rendering the special
condition impossible to comply with. Ultimately, the assured would
be without any remedy under the insurance. This amounts to an
absurdity, vitiating the very purpose behind an insurance contract.
As a result, we hold that the special condition cannot be treated as
a condition precedent to waive any liability under the policy. It has
been impliedly waived by the parties due to its non-material nature.
[2025] 5 S.C.R. 45
Sohom Shipping Pvt. Ltd. v.
M/s The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.
It is probably a term used in all contracts by the Respondent as a
part of its standard form, and it failed to exclude the same from the
policy availed of by the Appellant.
19. In a similar case, the policy required the assured to prove the claim
within forty days from the date of the policy itself. The Court, in Ramji
Karamsi (supra) allowed the claim of the assured to stand despite
the breach of the condition therein by observing that the term was
not a condition precedent to the plaintiff being entitled to maintain
his claim. The Court opined:
“28… But the term of the policy which has been relied
upon by the defendants would mean that the claim must
be formally made and proved by the assured within 40
days thereof, i.e., the policy which would, taking the date of
the policy as 21-4-1943, bring this period of 40 days up to
31-5-1943. Even though the loss be incurred on 3-6-1943,
the assured would be without a remedy, because he would
not have formally submitted and proved his claim by 31-5-
1943, which he ought to have done if his claim was to be a
good claim, having regard to this term of the policy. A more
absurd result could not possibly be conceived. It could never
be intended by any men in their senses that when the risk
of the policy was to run right up to 4-6-1943, and the loss
which occurred on or before that date would be considered
by the insurance company, the insurance company would
be relieved of all liability because on a strict interpretation
of this term which is relied upon by them and submitted
by them to be a condition precedent, the assured could
in no event make the claim before 31-5-1943. I decline to
entertain any further discussion on this point…”
20. In view of our findings, the Respondent is not entitled to repudiate the
claim of the Appellant on the ground of breach of the special condition.
We are cognisant of the fact that the Respondent has raised several
other objections, including allegations of forgery and breach of other
conditions, which may affect the sum awarded. However, the same
would have to be looked into on its own merits and proved before
the NCDRC.
21. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated
13.04.2021 passed by the NCDRC is set aside. The matter is remanded
46 [2025] 5 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
to the NCDRC with a direction to determine the extent of the insured
sum liable to be paid by the Respondent to the Appellant. Since the
parties are represented by their respective counsel, they shall appear
before NCDRC on 29.04.2025, without expecting separate notices
from NCDRC. The matter may be considered expeditiously by NCDRC
as the claim was made by the Appellant herein in the year 2013.
22. Parties to bear their own costs. Pending applications, if any, shall
stand disposed of.
Result of the case: Appeal allowed.
†
Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Doctrine of Uberrima Fidei"Sign in to search