Insurance Claim Dispute: United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd.
The case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Leisure Wear Exports Ltd. revolves around an insurance claim dispute that reached the Supreme Court of India. The respondent, a garment exporter, filed a claim against the insurance company for compensation regarding a loss incurred during transit. The case primarily focused on whether the respondent had the legal standing to file the claim.
The respondent, Leisure Wear Exports Ltd., was engaged in the business of selling and exporting hosiery goods. They had obtained an Open Marine Policy (Cargo) from the appellant, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., covering goods transported from India to any friendly country. The policy insured goods up to Rs. 2 crores and was valid from June 13, 1996, to June 12, 1997.
Background of the Case
The respondent dispatched consignments of hosiery goods worth Rs. 49,63,200 and Rs. 31,68,000 to Moscow. These consignments reached Mumbai Port, were shipped, and landed in Ukraine before being transported to Moscow by road. However, upon delivery, it was discovered that 142 and 139 cartons were missing.
The matter was reported to the insurance company, which appointed a surveyor, M/s Ingostrakh Insurance Company Ltd., Moscow, to assess the loss. The consignee attempted to claim compensation but was unsuccessful. Subsequently, the respondent filed a consumer complaint against the insurance company, seeking compensation under the policy.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner’s (Insurance Company) Arguments
- The respondent had assigned the insurance policy to their consignee, M/s Magna Overseas, making the consignee the rightful claimant, not the respondent.
- Since the consignee had the policy rights, the respondent lost their right to claim compensation from the insurance company.
- The complaint should be dismissed as the respondent had no locus standi.
Respondent’s (Leisure Wear Exports Ltd.) Arguments
- The insurance policy was in force when the loss occurred, and the respondent, being the insured party, had the right to claim compensation.
- The consignee had authorized them to file a claim, thereby giving them the legal right to proceed.
- The insurance company was liable for the loss under the terms of the policy.
Findings of the Consumer Forums
The State Consumer Commission, Punjab ruled in favor of the respondent, awarding Rs. 19,90,000 as compensation, including:
- 10% for moral loss
- 15% for loss of earnings
- 12% interest from November 7, 1996, till realization
The insurance company appealed to the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), which upheld the State Commission’s ruling. The company then approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court Judgment
The Supreme Court examined whether the respondent had the legal right to claim compensation. The court referred to Sections 17 and 52 of the Marine Insurance Act, 1963:
Section 17: “Where the assured assigns or otherwise parts with his interest in the subject-matter insured, he does not thereby transfer to the assignee his rights under the contract of insurance, unless there is an express or implied agreement with the assignee to that effect.”
Section 52: “A marine policy may be transferred by assignment unless it contains terms expressly prohibiting assignment. It may be assigned before or after loss. Where a policy has been assigned, the assignee is entitled to sue in his own name.”
Key Observations by the Court
- There was no express agreement between the respondent and M/s Magna Overseas transferring the insurance rights.
- The rights of the insured were not automatically transferred upon assignment.
- Even after assigning the policy, the insured retained the right to claim compensation unless explicitly transferred.
- The consignee authorized the respondent to claim compensation, validating the respondent’s locus standi.
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the State and National Consumer Forums. It ruled that the respondent had the legal right to claim compensation despite the assignment, as per Section 17 of the Marine Insurance Act.
Judgment delivered by: Abhay Manohar Sapre, Ashok Bhushan
Judgment Date: June 29, 2016
The ruling reaffirmed the principle that assignment of an insurance policy does not automatically transfer rights unless expressly stated. The insurance company was held liable to compensate for the loss incurred by the respondent.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: United India Insuran vs Leisure Wear Exports Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 29-06-2016-1741872421426.pdf
Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment
See all petitions in Commercial Insurance Disputes
See all petitions in Insurance Settlements
See all petitions in Other Insurance Cases
See all petitions in Judgment by Abhay Manohar Sapre
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments June 2016
See all petitions in 2016 judgments
See all posts in Insurance Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Insurance Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Insurance Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Insurance Cases Category
