Calcutta High Court
Smartstone Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Export Credit Gurantee Corporation Of ... on 12 January, 2018
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
ORDER SHEET
WP No. 107 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
SMARTSTONE PVT. LTD. & ANR.
Versus
EXPORT CREDIT GURANTEE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. & ORS.
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE DEBANGSU BASAK
Date : 12th January, 2018.
Ms. Noelle Banerjee led by
Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury,
Mr. Dipak Dey, Advs.
...for the petitioners
Mr. Kunaljit Bhattacharya,
Mrs. Shohini Chakraborty, Advs.
...for the respondents
The Court : The petitioners assail rejection of a claim on account of insurance lodged by the petitioner with the respondent no. 1.
Learned advocate for the petitioners submits that the claim lodged by the petitioner was rejected for reasons extraneous to the contract of insurance.
Learned advocate appearing for the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 submits on instruction that, the rejection was made de hors the terms of the contract. He submits that, the rejection was made on the ground that the beneficial owner of two consignments was the same. One 2 of the consignees did not pay a portion of the consignment value to the petitioner. Consequently, the respondents had rejected the claim on account of insurance.
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.
It appears that the petitioners had exported two consignments to two different legal entities. One of the legal entities had failed to pay a portion of the consignment and a claim was lodged with the respondent no. 1. Such claim was rejected on the ground that two consignments had the same beneficial owner. As noted above, when a question was put to the learned advocate for the respondents as to whether such ground of rejection comes within the ambit of any of the clauses of the contract for insurance, he submits that, the of ground is not available in the contract for insurance.
The parties are bound by the terms of the contract more particularly, in an insurance contract. The insurance company is therefore not entitled to act beyond the terms of the contract while evaluating a claim on account of the policy of insurance. In the present case, the rejection being founded on a ground which is not a term of the contract to reject the claim, such a position of the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 has to be set aside and the same is set aside. The respondent no. 1 will process 3 the claim made by the petitioners in accordance with law and pay the proceeds of such claim as expeditiously as possible, preferably within four weeks from date.
W.P. No. 107 of 2017 is disposed of. No order as to costs.
(DEBANGSU BASAK, J.) TR/