NDLI: Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd & Anr Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Consumer Protection Act
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (68 of 1986)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Consumer Protection Act, 1986: Deficiency in service – Insurance policy – Respondent purchased a “Transit Marine Insurance Policy” from the appellant-insurer on 21 July 2005, to cover the transportation of Helicopter from Langley, Canada to Bhopal, India – As per the acceptance letter, the transit route for the transportation of the helicopter was ‘Langley to Bhopal (by road/by air)” – On 5 October 2005, the helicopter was transported in a knocked down condition by air to New Delhi – On 13 October 2005, the helicopter was cleared by the customs and was shifted to a hangar at New Delhi – On inspection, the window of crew door was reported to be damaged – By letter dated 22 October 2005, the respondent informed insurer of the damage and stated that the helicopter was “being assembled at the Hangar located at Delhi so that the Helicopter can fly from Delhi to Bhopal” – On 23 November 2005, the respondent informed insurer that upon inspection, the tail boom of the helicopter was found damaged – A surveyor was appointed by the appellant to assess the alleged damage – In the report, surveyor concluded that the damage to the tail boom had occurred at Hangar Delhi after substantial assembly but prior to test flight and not during transit and hence would not fall under the purview of marine insurance policy as issued to the insured – Whether storage, unpacking and assembly of the helicopter at New Delhi would fall outside the scope of the expression “ordinary course of transit”, terminating coverage under the policy – Held: The insurance cover in the instant case is expressed in terms of the voyage itself – It provided that policy commenced from the time the insured cargo left the warehouse, premises or place of storage at the place named in the policy and continued during the “ordinary course of transit” – The specific act of unpacking the cargo at New Delhi for assembling it for the flight to Bhopal indicated that the transportation of the cargo in a knocked down state had come to an end – Once the respondent decided to leave the goods in the hangar at New Delhi for its commercial convenience not associated with or in furtherance of the requirements of their carriage to Bhopal, the transit insurance ended – The act of assembling the helicopter with a view to having it flown under its own power, instead of transporting the packaged knocked down helicopter further to Bhopal by road, would not constitute as storage in the ordinary course of transit – The policy covered only those risks that were associated with the transportation of the helicopter and did not cover the risks associated with the flight or operation of the helicopter – Change in the character of the helicopter from a knocked down state to a ready to fly state exposed insurer to risks not contemplated by the parties under the policy – Nature of the subject-matter having been altered, the cargo could not be said to be in transit and insurer was absolved from any liability arising out of any subsequent damage to the consignment. Insurance Policy – Expression “in the ordinary course of transit”, meaning of – Held: Expression “in the ordinary course of transit” depends on the context, object and the wording of the particular policy – In context of the policy, the words “in transit” do not require transportation of the consignment in a single trip from the commencement to the final destination but includes those interruptions in motion that are incidental to or in furtherance of the conveyance or transportation of the consignment – The question of what does and does not constitute a deviation in furtherance of the conveyance of the goods is a question of fact that must be determined by both the intent of the policy and the actions of the parties. Insurance Policy – Burden of proof – For the respondent to prove its case, a mere assertion that the loss incurred during the course of transit is not sufficient – Burden of proof lies on the respondent to show that the loss incurred was covered within the terms of the policy and that on a balance of probabilities there existed a proximate cause between the loss incurred and the consignment being in transit.Insurance Policy – Construction of – Held: Insurance policies should be construed according to the principles of construction generally applicable to commercial and consumer contracts – The court must interpret the words in which the contract is expressed by the parties and not embark upon making a new contract for the parties – Interpretation of statutes. Insurance Policy – Marine transit insurance policy – The purpose of the marine transit insurance policy is to cover the consignment from risks associated with transportation of the consignment from one place to another – It is fundamental for those responsible for carrying the cargo to ensure that all stages of the transportation are effected with reasonable promptness – “In transit”, however, does not necessarily mean that the consignment needs to be in continuous motion at all times – A mere brief suspension must however be in furtherance of the ordinary course of transit – During the ordinary course of transit, the consignment might frequently come to rest or be temporarily stored in the dock awaiting loading or customs clearance – However, unduly protracted steps in the cargo’s transportation are not within, and may terminate, the “ordinary course of transit.”.
Judge	Hon'ble Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud
Neutral Citation	2020 INSC 358
Petitioner	Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd & Anr
Respondent	The State Of Madhya Pradesh
SCR	[2020] 6 S.C.R. 198
Judgement Date	2020-04-24
Case Number	2366-67

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd & Anr Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Please Log-in to view this content

Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

Jacob Punnen & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Hind Offshore Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Iffco – Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Payarelal Nirnajan Lal

Om Prakash Ahuja Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Etc.

Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. Vs. National Insurance Co. & Anr.

Reliance Life Insurance Co Ltd & Anr. Vs. Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod

M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Prakash Raturi

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd & Anr Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd & Anr Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

Gurshinder Singh Vs. Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.

Jacob Punnen & Anr. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.

Hind Offshore Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Iffco – Tokio General Insurance Co. Ltd.

Dharmendra Goel Vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. M/s Payarelal Nirnajan Lal

Om Prakash Ahuja Vs. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. Etc.

Kandimalla Raghavaiah & Co. Vs. National Insurance Co. & Anr.

Reliance Life Insurance Co Ltd & Anr. Vs. Rekhaben Nareshbhai Rathod

M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Ram Prakash Raturi

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Co Ltd & Anr Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh