Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.42 seconds)
M/S. Sanwaria Agro Oils Ltd. vs New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & 2 Ors. on 15 October, 2025 cites

New India Assurance Co.Ltd vs Parakh Foods Ltd on 28 July, 2009

Agro, and Parrys Sugar, indirectly also concluded in favour of the insured by the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Parakh Food Ltd., still we do find some merit also in the contention as raised by Mr. Shahi, though the issue is wholly irrelevant for the present proceedings in as much as we have already factually found that the alleged damage to soybean stock is due to neither fire nor even any spontaneous combustion because no such technical report has been placed on record. We agree with Mr. Shahi that at least the plain reading of the policy coverage clause, exclusion clause and the endorsement together do lead to the meaning of the endorsement as canvassed by him, meaning that the "damage due to fire only" appears to continue to be an unambiguous requirement for indemnification even after obtaining add-on cover. Mr. Shahi is also right that the 1992 decision of Roshan Lal Oil did in fact note and relied on the fact, first, that there 'was no policy document on record evidencing the condition of "fire only" requirement in add-on cover as pleaded by the insurer therein and, second, that the insurance company could not explain the additional benefit of add-on cover if damage due only to fire proper is still a requisite pre-condition even after paying premium for add-on cover. When this aspect was considered afresh in III (2008) CPJ 137 (NC) after setting aside by the Supreme Court, as rightly submitted by Mr. Shahi, these particular critical factual aspect was not recorded or considered, at all, and this Commission, after drawing support from Murli Agro, which itself had relied on inter alia the 1992 set aside decision in Roshan Lal Oil after such set aside, proceeded to hold that unless the "fire" proper is considered unnecessary to be additionally a necessary event, or unless spontaneous combustion itself is considered a mere manifestation of such "fire" proper, there is absolutely no benefit of the additional cover of spontaneous combustion even after payment of Page 50 of 59 additional premium, and therefore, "fire" proper, and the damage due to such fire, cannot and should not be considered a necessary even for indemnification, when add-on cover of spontaneous combustion has been obtained by the insured by paying extra premium. In other words, the absence of any additional benefit despite payment of extra premium is the primary reason why despite express requirement in the policy/add-on cover the "
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

M/S. Murli Agro Products Ltd. vs M/S. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. on 10 December, 2004

18. It is thus emphasized that the settled law is that when a spontaneous combustion add-on cover is obtained, the damage due to its own fermentation, natural heating and spontaneous combustion are covered without there being any external manifestation of the incident by way of fire or smoke or heat or such other means and that the damage to the stock itself would suffice to establish the entitlement to the indemnification. Further, pointing out this Commission's decision in M/s Parrys Sugar Industries Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. in CC NO. 251 of 2012 dated 26.04.2024, it has been submitted that relying on Murli Agro (supra), this Commission took note of the decision in United India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Taj Sugar Works & Anr. II (2002) CPJ 43 (NC) and went on to observe that the spontaneous combustion itself is a form of fire and that even when there is no add-on endorsement of spontaneous combustion obtained by the insured and even in absence of any visible evidence of any fire, fume or heat, still the damage consequent to natural combustion shall be an indemnifiable loss under the fire and special perils policy.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 0 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs M.K.J. Corporation on 21 August, 1996

22. Further, it is settled law that contract of insurance is based upon good faith. It is the duty of the insurers and their agents to disclose all material facts within their knowledge since obligation of good faith applies to them equally with the assured [(Re. M/s. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. M.K.J. Corporation, III (1996) CPJ 8 Page 43 of 59 (SC)=(1996) 6 SCC 428)]. If the insurance coverage was not extended even by taking additional premium for the damage caused by spontaneous combustion/natural heating which may not result in fire, it ought to have been clearly stated.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 169 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

M/S.Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P)Ltd vs United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr on 8 October, 2010

Even in Roshanlal Oil Mills Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. I (1992) CPJ 293 (NC), referred to in Murli Agro and Parrys Sugars, the operation of the peril of spontaneous combustion stood well-established and was even so recorded by the surveyors. As such, such spontaneous combustion and consequent damage in Roshan Lal Oil Mills was so certified by highly placed experts namely, Prof. M.M; Chakraborty, Chairman, Research Council, Central Food Technology and Research Institute and also of Project Director, Haryana Agricultural University. No such expert report is obtained or placed on Page 45 of 59 record in the present case by the complainant. In Gayatri Sugars Ltd. also the surveyor himself had observed during his visit to the site that the molasses had overflown from the tank and the decomposed and solidified molasses was found all around the tank spread in 2 to 3 acres of land around the molasses tank. Thus, the damage, which occurred in the month of May was indisputably on account of spontaneous combustion which was not only observed but also so noted by the surveyor in his survey report. However, after noting that the molasses stock was not opted by the insured in the add-on cover for spontaneous combustion, this Commission also came to the conclusion that such evident loss evidently due to spontaneous combustion is also not indemnifiable under the normal fire policy without add-on cover of spontaneous combustion. Thus, all the decisions relied upon by the insured (except Gayatri Sugars Ltd.) proceed to hold that when the add-on cover for spontaneous combustion is obtained by paying extra premium, the loss consequent to spontaneous combustion is indemnifiable even without there being actual fire manifested through flames or smoke. But in all these cases, the existence or operation of spontaneous combustion was not only not in doubt but was positively and diligently established by the insured as certified scientifically by recognized experts and laboratories and was also so noted by the surveyor. In the present case, the surveyor has observed that there is no spontaneous combustion and also there is absolutely no technical or scientific or expert evidence or credible physical evidence establishing such spontaneous combustion, and therefore, these cases relied upon by the complainant cannot come to the aid of the insured. After carefully going through all the decisions as referred to by the learned counsels, and in light of what we have already found as a matter of fact, there is indeed no credible and technical evidence or any expert opinion certifying the occurrence of spontaneous combustion or self-heating in the soya seeds as claimed by the complainant, and therefore, we agree with Mr. Shahi that these decisions have no applicability in the facts of the present case. As such, the report of M/s Supreme Associates, which has duly considered the Cotecna sample analysis reports, has categorically opined that the whatever damage or deterioration in the stock is neither due to any heat or any combustion or any fat-clevage but merely due to higher moisture-content, No evidence contradicting such report or even any scientific literature pointing out the error in the Page 46 of 59 opinion of M/s Supreme Associates has been brought on record in the complaint. Therefore also we agree with Mr. Shahi, that these decisions, in the facts of the present case, cannot come to the assistance of the complainant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 272 - D K Jain - Full Document

Indian Sugar Exim Corporation Limited vs M/S. United India Insurance Co. Ltd & ... on 5 July, 2013

9. We have further heard the learned counsels for both the parties and have carefully perused the entire material available on record. It is the contention of Mr. Srivastav on behalf of the complainant that repudiation done by the OP is illegal, arbitrary and wholly unwarranted. Placing reliance on 5 Member decision of this Commission in Murali Agro, it is the fundamental contention that there was no requirement either under the Policy conditions or under law that the spontaneous combustion should precede with or be succeded by smoke or flames/fire and therefore, the grounds of repudiation, as mentioned by the OP insurer in repudiation letter is per se illegal and contrary to the evidence placed on record. Ld. Counsel placed heavy reliance on the decisions referred to in the order dated 26.11.2024 to contend that it has been categorically held therein that the loss occurring due to "spontaneous combustion", even in the absence of fire or fumes, is well within the coverage of add-on endorsement. The principle or ratio of admissibility for indemnification of damage or loss even in the absence of fire is further explained in Parry's Sugar (supra) which decisions together with the decisions relied upon therein, strongly support the case of the complainant. The Policy covered the risk of spontaneous combustion and an additional premium was taken by the OP and thus, the damage suffered was squarely covered as insured perils under the Policy. It is further stated by the complainant that surveyor appointed by the OP grossly erred in Page 13 of 59 appreciating facts and gave a wrong conclusion that there was no loss being caused due to spontaneous combustion. The question of exaggerated claim also does not arise, as the exact quantification of loss sustained due to the said spontaneous combustion in the stocks took some time, as the segregation and measurement of around 2800 MTs of soyabean was not an easy task for them and initially while lodging the claim statement, an approximate loss of 2000 MTs of soyabean in the closed silo was duly informed to the OP, as by that time; the exact loss sustained could not be ascertained due to the nature of the said silo and huge quantity stored therein and when the said silo was emptied, it was eventually discovered that the loss to the soyabean was approximately 2800 MTs and accordingly, conveyed to the OP insurer. All the documents pertaining to the said loss were supplied, and despite having received the said documentary information, the claim was wrongfully recommended as no claim and wrongly repudiated by insurer on flimsy grounds. On the allegation of the OP insurer that FIR was not lodged, it is clarified by the complainant that as the fire was already controlled and there was no flames or fire noted on discovery of the loss, no FIR was needed or Police formalities were required because only the spontaneous combustion had taken place which did not require any such inquiry or reporting. Still, an application was submitted to the Police Station, Mandideep and Chief Officer, Nagar Palika, Gandhidham (Gujarat) on 21.02.2014 regarding the issuance of Fire Incident Report, who in turn, issued Certificates respectively confirming the fact that the loss occurred was due to spontaneous combustion and no offence was prima-facie found to have been committed. It is the averment that they also approached an Independent Chartered Account M/s. Rupa Sekar & Associates, who ascertained the loss so sustained and on perusal of the documents supplied pertaining to the audited accounts of the Company, they assessed the loss/damage suffered by the complainant was 2800 MTs of soyabean. We have been taken through the various email communications filed along with the complaint to contend that all the requisite documents as required by the surveyor including the technical report from Cotectna were provided, on the basis of which, the surveyor has also assessed the loss, though wrongly at a lower-than-actual loss figure, but such assessment itself will negate the allegations in the repudiation letter regarding non-submission of the documents or of informations. Taking us through the Page 14 of 59 reports of Cotectna at page 49, it has been pointed out that it gets established that comprehensive damage and loss to the stock of soyabean was suffered due to spontaneous combustion which reduced the value of the stock by Rs. 26753/- pMT. The same being covered under the policy in view of extra premium for spontaneous combustion received by the insurer, the repudiation is wholly arbitrary and illegal resulting into gross deficiency in service.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs Taj Sugar Works And Anr. on 13 August, 2001

18. It is thus emphasized that the settled law is that when a spontaneous combustion add-on cover is obtained, the damage due to its own fermentation, natural heating and spontaneous combustion are covered without there being any external manifestation of the incident by way of fire or smoke or heat or such other means and that the damage to the stock itself would suffice to establish the entitlement to the indemnification. Further, pointing out this Commission's decision in M/s Parrys Sugar Industries Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. in CC NO. 251 of 2012 dated 26.04.2024, it has been submitted that relying on Murli Agro (supra), this Commission took note of the decision in United India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Taj Sugar Works & Anr. II (2002) CPJ 43 (NC) and went on to observe that the spontaneous combustion itself is a form of fire and that even when there is no add-on endorsement of spontaneous combustion obtained by the insured and even in absence of any visible evidence of any fire, fume or heat, still the damage consequent to natural combustion shall be an indemnifiable loss under the fire and special perils policy.
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1