Supreme Court - Daily Orders
M/S Twenty First Century Media Private ... vs New India Assurance Company Ltd. (Nia) on 25 January, 2019
Bench: Rohinton Fali Nariman, Vineet Saran
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1128 OF 2019
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 33038 OF 2017)
M/S TWENTY FIRST CENTURY MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ... Appellant(s)
Versus
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. ... Respondent(s)
O R D E R
1) Leave granted.
2) The appellant-Company has knocked at the doors of this Court
for the reason that the insurance policy dated 15.10.2010 clearly protected the appellant-Company against floods, rains, etc., and the premium was paid on this basis.
3) It so happened that a match in Kochi was called off due to rain on 17.10.2010. As a result of which, the appellant went to the insurance company to settle its claim which was eventually settled on 31.05.2011. Apprehending that similar claims may be made in future qua other matches, the insurance company, unilaterally, by an endorsement dated 18.10.2010, deleted from the policy, the expression “floods, rains, etc.”
4) On 20.10.2010, the appellant before us immediately lodged its protest against this unilateral deletion. On 24.10.2010, the match at Goa was called off under similar circumstances, owing to rain. Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by R NATARAJAN Date: 2019.01.29 The appellant knocked at the doors of the High Court in which it 16:49:42 IST Reason: stated that the action of the insurance company in unilaterally doing away with the expression, “floods, rains”, from the policy, 2 was arbitrary and affects its fundamental right under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Both the single Judge and the Division Bench, thought it fit not to interfere as disputed questions of fact arise and as the dispute pertains purely to the realm of contract.
5) Having heard learned counsel for both the sides, we are of the view that the judgment of the High Court needs to be set aside. There is no dispute whatsoever that the action in the present case by the respondent was wholly arbitrary and violated the appellant’s fundamental right under Article 14. No disputed question of fact is raised, and it is settled by several decisions of this Court that even within the contractual sphere, the State, as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution, cannot be arbitrary.
6) For this reason, we set aside the judgment of the High Court. In consequence thereof, the respondent will now process the claim of the appellant so far as the Goa match is concerned.
7) The Appeal is disposed of accordingly.
......................J. (ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN) ......................J. (VINEET SARAN) New Delhi, Dated: January 25, 2019.
3
ITEM NO.42 COURT NO.6 SECTION XIV
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No(s). 1128/2019
M/S TWENTY FIRST CENTURY MEDIA PRIVATE LIMITED Appellant(s)
VERSUS
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 138706/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES
IA NO. 138703/2017-PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)
Date : 25-01-2019 This matter was called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEET SARAN For Appellant(s) Mr. Amit Sibal, Sr.Adv.
Mr. Siddharth Bhatnagar, Adv. Mr. Debmalya Banerjee, Adv. Ms. Meghna Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Rohan Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Kartik Bhatnagar, Adv. Mr. A.S. Aman, Adv.
Mr. Manish Sharma, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kapoor, Adv.
Mr. Deeraj P. Deo, Adv.
Mrs. Manik Karanjawala, Adv. M/s. Karanjawala & Co., AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. P.K. Seth, Adv.
Ms. Manjeet Chawla, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The civil appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.
Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(MANAV SHARMA) (TAPAN KUMAR CHAKRABORTY) COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR (Signed order is placed on the file.) 4