Supreme Court of India
CANARA BANKversusM/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.
- Citation
- 2020 INSC 140
- Decided
- 6 February 2020
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- S ABDUL NAZEER
Holding
The insurance company is liable to indemnify the farmers as beneficiaries and consumers, and must pay the value of the goods as per warehouse receipts with 12% simple interest, while the bank may recover its loan principal with the same interest rate.
Summary
Farmers stored their chillies and other produce in a cold store that had taken a comprehensive insurance policy with United India Insurance. The cold store and the farmers obtained loans from Canara Bank, hypothecating the stored produce as security. A fire destroyed the cold store and the produce; the insurance company denied liability, alleging the fire was caused by kerosene, that the farmers were not consumers, and that there was no privity of contract. The Supreme Court held that the fire was accidental, the farmers were beneficiaries and thus consumers under the Consumer Protection Act, and that privity of contract is not required for consumer claims. The Court interpreted the insurance policy broadly, rejected the exclusion clause argument, and directed the insurer to pay the value of the goods as per warehouse receipts with 12% simple interest, while the bank could recover its loan principal with the same interest rate. The appeals were disposed of with detailed directions for payment and accounting.
Issues considered
- The nature of the fire and whether it was accidental for insurance liability
- Whether the farmers qualify as 'consumers' under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986
- The necessity of privity of contract between the insurance company and the farmers
- The applicability of the exclusion clause and other policy conditions
- The appropriate valuation of the destroyed goods and interest payable
- The extent of the bank's liability and interest rate entitlement
Legislation cited
Subjects
consumer protectioninsurance liabilitybeneficiaryprivity of contractfire insurancebailmenttripartite agreementinterest ratevaluation of goodsexclusion clausenon-disclosure
Judgment
498 [2020]REPORTS
SUPREME COURT 7 S.C.R. 498 [2020] 7 S.C.R.
A CANARA BANK
v.
M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1042 of 2020)
B FEBRUARY 06, 2020
[S. ABDUL NAZEER AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.2(d) – “Beneficiary” under
the insurance policy availed by the insured, if “consumer” under
C the Act – Tripartite agreement between farmers, Bank and cold store
– Farmers’ agricultural produce was stored in cold store – Cold
store got the stocks insured from an insurance company – Farmers
hypothecated agricultural produce to the Bank – Bank issued loans
– Agricultural produce destroyed by fire – Farmers claimed that the
insurance company was liable to pay the value of the agricultural
D produce as on the date of fire – Insurance company contended that
the fire was not accidental and farmers were not consumers – State
and National Commission concurrently held that fire was accidental;
farmers were held consumers – On appeal, held:Whether the fire
took place by a short circuit or any other reason, as long as insured
E is not the person who caused the fire, the insurance company cannot
escape its liability in terms of the insurance policy – Contention of
the insurance company that the fire was ignited by the use of kerosene
and hence it is not liable, rejected – Tripartite agreement read along
with the terms of the insurance policy make it clear that the intention
of the parties was that they would be compensated by the insurance
F company in case of any untoward loss – Definition of consumer
under the Act is very wide and includes beneficiaries taking benefit
of the insurance availed by the insured – Thus, the farmer is a
beneficiary under the policy and therefore, definitely a consumer –
Orders of both the Commissions that the complaint under the Act is
G maintainable, upheld – Value of the goods as reflected in the
warehouse receipts be taken to be the value on the date of fire –
Insurance company to indemnify the cold store with regard to the
value of goods – Farmers to get the amount payable under the
policy, subject to the bank clause – Further directions issued –
Insurance – Contract.
H
498
CANARA BANK v. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. 499
LTD. & ORS.
Consumer Protection – Insurance Policy – Principles of A
interpretation – Discussed.
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 – s.2(1)(d)(i) – Insurance
policy – Privity of contract between insurance company and
claimants – If required – Held: As far as the Act is concerned, it is
not necessary that there should be privity of contract between the B
insurance company and the claimants – It is not necessary that
those beneficiaries should be parties to the contract of insurance.
Contract – Bailor and bailee relationship – Farmers’ goods
stored in a cold store was destroyed by fire – Cold store had got it
insured from the insurance company – Insurance company C
contended that since the cold store held the goods in trust, they
were not liable – Held: Rejected – Farmers paid consideration to
the cold store and, therefore, the goods were not held in trust per se
– Possession of the farm produce was handed over by the bailor,
i.e. farmer to the cold store i.e. the bailee, in terms of the contract –
This is not a case envisaged under Exclusion Clause 5 of the D
insurance policy – Goods were neither held on commission –
Insurance.
Doctrines/Principles– Principle of uberrima fides – When not
applicable – Discussed.
E
Consumer Protection – Insurance policy – Non-disclosure of
material facts – Effect of – Held: To make a contract void the non-
disclosure should be of some very material fact – Misrepresentation
or misdescription only makes the policy voidable –If the insurance
company while accepting the proposal form does not ask the insured
to clarify any ambiguities then after accepting the premium it cannot F
urge that a wrong declaration was made by the insured.
Consumer Protection – Insurance Policy – Tripartite agreement
between farmers, Bank and cold store – Farmers’ goods were stored
in cold store – Goods insured with insurance company – Farmers
hypothecated goods to the Bank – Bank issued loans – Tripartite G
agreement not disclosed to the insurance company – Goods destroyed
by fire – Held: When the Bank issues loans against the
hypothecation of goods, as in the present case, and insists that the
goods should be insured to safeguard its outstandings then a duty
lies upon the Bank to inform the insurance company of the policy –
H
500 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.
A In the present case, matter was dragged only because names of the
farmers were not mentioned in the policy or the tripartite agreement
was not handed over to the insurance company – Some level of
deficiency on behalf of the Bank – Thus, it cannot claim interest at
the contractual rate and is entitled to charge simple interest from
the date of grant of loan at the rate of 12% p.a.
B
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. Neither in the report of M/s. Truth Labs (relied
upon by insurance company) nor in the other reports by the
insurance company is there anything to show that the insured
C had set the cold store on fire. Whether the fire took place by a
short circuit or any other reason, as long as insured is not the
person who caused the fire, the insurance company cannot escape
its liability in terms of the insurance policy. The contention of the
insurance company that the fire was ignited by the use of kerosene
and hence it is not liable is rejected. [Para 16][512-C-D]
D
2. The principles relating to interpretation of insurance
policies are well settled and not in dispute. At the same time, the
provisions of the policy must be read and interpreted in such a
manner so as to give effect to the reasonable expectations of all
the parties including the insured and the beneficiaries. It is also
E well settled that coverage provisions should be interpreted
broadly and if there is any ambiguity, the same should be resolved
in favour of the insured. On the other hand, the exclusion clauses
must be read narrowly. The policy and its components must be
read as a whole and given a meaning which furthers the
F expectations of the parties and also the business realities. The
entire policy should be understood and examined in such a manner
and when that is done, the interpretation becomes a commercially
sensible interpretation. The tripartite agreement read along with
the terms of the policy it is obvious that the Bank insisted that
the stock be insured. The farmers were told that they would pay
G the premium. The cold store while fixing the rent obviously
factored the premium into the rent. It was obvious that the
intention of the parties was that they would be compensated by
the insurance company in case of any untoward loss. [Para 21]
[513-G; 514-A-C]
H
CANARA BANK v. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. 501
LTD. & ORS.
3. As far as the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is A
concerned, it is not necessary that there should be privity of
contract between the insurance company and the claimants. The
definition of consumer under Section 2(d) is in 2 parts. Sub-clause
(i) of Section 2(1)(d) deals with a person who buys any goods and
includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys
B
such goods as long as the use is made with the approval of such
person. Therefore, the definition of consumer even in the 1st part
not only includes the person who has purchased but includes any
user of the goods so long as such user is made with the approval
of the person who has purchased the goods. The definition of the
consumer in relation to hiring or availing of services is much C
wider. In this part of the section, consumer includes not only the
person who has hired or availed of the services but also includes
any beneficiary of such services. Therefore, an insured could be
a person who hires or avails of the services of the insurance
company but there could be many other persons who could be
D
the beneficiaries of the services. It is not necessary that those
beneficiaries should be parties to the contract of insurance. They
are the consumers not because they are parties to the contract
of insurance but because they are the beneficiaries of the policy
taken out by the insured. The definition of consumer under the
Act is very wide and it includes beneficiaries who can take benefit E
of the insurance availed by the insured. Under the tripartite
agreement entered between the Bank, the cold store and the
farmers, the stock of the farmers was hypothecated as security
with the Bank and the Bank had insisted that the said stock should
be insured with a view to safeguard its interest. The penultimate
F
clause of the tripartite agreement in unambiguous terms binds
the cold store to insure the goods, to indemnify the produce, to
cover the risk and cover the loan amount. This insurance policy
had to be taken at the cost of the second party which is the farmer.
Therefore, there can be no manner of doubt that the farmer is a
beneficiary under the policy. The farmer is, therefore, definitely G
a consumer and the orders of both the Commissions that the
complaint under the Act is maintainable are upheld.
[Paras 26-28][515-H; 516-A-H]
4. In the present case, the farmer had agreed to pay
consideration to the cold store and, therefore, the goods were H
502 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.
A not held in trust per se but the goods were held by cold store as
bailee of the goods for consideration. The possession of the farm
produce was handed over by the bailor, i.e. farmer to the cold
store i.e. the bailee, in terms of the contract. There may be inter
se rights and liabilities between the farmer and the cold store but
it cannot be said that the goods were held ‘in trust’. The goods
B
were also not held ‘on commission’. No commission was payable
and only rental was paid. [Para 33][518-B-D]
5. The insurance policy itself envisaged that there were
interest of other parties and not only the Bank and the insured.
Therefore, it was for the insurance company to verify and find
C out who was the owner of the goods. It could not presume that all
the goods belong to the cold store. The assumption of the
insurance company that it had insured the goods belonging to
the cold store itself has no factual basis. Cold stores are
constructed in such a way that there are many compartments in
D the cold store. Any person can deposit a small or large amount of
goods to be kept in cold store. Normally, it is the goods of third
parties which are stored in a cold store and, therefore, the Court
is dealing with a policy of insurance whereby the premises and
the stock and goods in a cold store have been insured. The natural
corollary would be that the insurance company should have known
E that the goods belong to the third parties. From the policy of
insurance, it is found that in respect of description of risk, the
insurance covers “Stock of Guntur Chillies/Byadigi Chillies/Other
variety Chillies, Jawar Seeds, Bengal Garam, Red Gram,
Tambrind, Coriander Seeds & Other pulses.” This stock in trade
F was covered for a sum of Rs.30 crores and premium was charged
accordingly. A prudent insurance company before issuing a policy
of such a heavy amount, must or at least should have ascertained
the value and the nature of the goods. The insurance company
herein is one of the largest nationalised insurance companies
and a presumption has to be drawn that it must have verified the
G details before insurance policy was issued. In case, the insurance
company has chosen not to verify the stock it cannot take
advantage of its own negligence. The principle of uberrima fides
has no application because the cold store had declared all
necessary facts. The bank clause clearly indicated that the goods
H
CANARA BANK v. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. 503
LTD. & ORS.
were hypothecated/pledged to the Bank. Therefore, the insurance A
company now cannot turn around and claim that the names of the
owners were not supplied to it at the time of insurance.The
insurance policy was renewed at least twice. Therefore, the policy
was in existence for 3 years and it is in the 3rd year that the fire
took place. [Paras 36, 37][519-E-H; 520-A-E]
B
6. Further, as long as the parties to the tripartite agreement
i.e. the Bank, the farmer and the cold store, are not disputing the
correctness of the agreement, there is no reason why the Court
should not accept the same to be a genuine document.
[Para 40][521-B]
C
7. If the insurance company while accepting the proposal
form does not ask the insured to clarify any ambiguities then the
insurance company after accepting the premium cannot now urge
that there was a wrong declaration made by the insured. To make
a contract void the non-disclosure should be of some very
material fact. In the peculiar facts of this case, not disclosing the D
tripartite agreement or the names of the owners cannot be said
to be such a material fact as to make the policy void or voidable.
There is no fraudulent claim made. There is no false declaration
made and neither is the loss and damage occasioned by any wilful
act or connivance of the insured. The insurance company under E
the insurance policy is liable to indemnify the cold store with
regard to the value of goods and since the farmers are the
beneficiaries, they are entitled to get the amount payable under
the policy, subject to the bank clause. [Paras 43, 44][522-C-F]
8. When the Bank issues loans against the hypothecation F
of goods, as in the present case, and insists that the goods should
be insured to safeguard its outstandings then a duty lies upon
the Bank to inform the insurance company of the policy. The
matter has dragged to this stage only because the names of the
farmers were not mentioned in the policy or because the tripartite
agreement was not handed over to the insurance company. The G
Bank, as a prudent financial institution, should have insisted that
the tripartite agreement should also be handed over to the
insurance company. Therefore, there is some level of deficiency
on behalf of the Bank. The Bank cannot claim interest at the
contractual rate. It would be entitled to charge simple interest H
504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.
A right from the date of grant of loan at the rate of 12% per annum.
[Paras 48 & 49][523-G-H; 524-A-D]
9. The decision of the National Commission that the value
of the goods as reflected in the warehouse receipts should be
taken to be the value on the date of fire is affirmed. Bank shall be
B entitled to recover the principal amount advanced by it to each
one of the farmers along with the simple interest at the rate of
12% per annum from the date of advancing of loan till repayment
thereof. The insurance company is liable to pay the value of goods
as reflected in the warehouse receipts of each farmer along with
simple interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of
C fire till payment of the amount. The dues of the Bank till the date
of fire will have to be first determined and, thereafter, the excess
will be payable to the farmer along with the interest. Further
direction issued. [Paras 54, 55][526-B, D-E]
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harchand Rai Chandan
D
Lal (2004) 8 SCC 644 : [2004] 4 Suppl. SCR 662; Raghunath
Rai Bareja v. Punjab National Bank (2007) 2 SCC 230 :
[2006] 10 Suppl. SCR 287; Suraj Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills
(P) Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2010) 10 SCC
567 : [2010] 13 SCR 138 – referred to.
E
M. C. Chacko v. The State Bank of Travancore, Trivandrum
(1969) 2 SCC 343 : [1970] 1 SCR 658; Satwant Kaur Sandhu
v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2009) 8 SCC 316 : [2009]
10 SCR 560 – held inapplicable.
F Case Law Reference
[2004] 4 Suppl. SCR 662 referred to Para 18
[2006] 10 Suppl. SCR 287 referred to Para 19
[2010] 13 SCR 138 referred to Para 20
G
[1970] 1 SCR 658 held inapplicable Para 29
[2009] 10 SCR 560 held inapplicable Para 41
H
CANARA BANK v. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. 505
LTD. & ORS.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1042 A
of 2020.
From the Judgment and Order dated 08.06.2018 of the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in First Appeal
No. 2327 of 2017.
With B
Civil Appeal Nos. 1043-1051, 1052-1059, 1060-1071, 1072-1081,
1082-1090, 1091-1097, 1098-1106, 1107-1117, 1118-1126, 1127-1133, 1134-
1203 of 2020.
P.P. Malhotra, Dr. (Mr.) Rajeev Dhavan, Gopal C
Shankaranarayanan, Sajan Poovayya, Dhruv Mehta, Sr. Advs., Vineet
Malhotra, Vishal Gohri, Ms. Sunaina Phul, Yasir Rauf, Shubhendu
Kaushik, Mohit Paul, Pratibhanu Singh Kharola, Mahesh Choudhary,
Sabarish Subramanian, Y. William Vinoth Kumar, Vishnu Unnikrishnan
(for K. Paari Vendhan), Rajesh Kumar-I, Anant Gautam, Ms. Sakshi
Gaur, Sorabh Dahiya, Ms. Khushboo Aggarwal, Vibhu Sharma, Anmol D
Mehta, Deepak Anand, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DEEPAK GUPTA, J.
1. Leave granted. E
2. All these appeals are being decided by one common judgment
since they arise out of a common order dated 08.06.2018 of the National
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, hereinafter
referred to as ‘the National Commission’.
3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that most of the claimants, F
hereinafter referred to as ‘the farmers’, had grown Byadgi Chilli Crop
during the year 2012-2013. Some of the farmers had some other crops.
These farmers had stored their agricultural produce in a cold store run
by a partnership firm under the name and style of Sreedevi Cold Storage,
hereinafter referred to as ‘the cold store’. These farmers also obtained G
loans from Canara Bank, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’. The
loan was advanced by the Bank to each one of the farmers on security
of the agricultural produce stored in the cold store. The cold store was
insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited, hereinafter
referred to as ‘the insurance company’. A fire took place in the cold
H
506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.
A store on the night intervening 13.01.2014 and 14.01.2014. The entire
building of the cold store and the entire stock of agricultural produce
was destroyed.
4. After the fire, the cold store, which had taken out a
comprehensive insurance policy, raised a claim with the insurance
B company but the claim of the cold store was repudiated by the insurance
company mainly on the ground that the fire was not an accidental fire.
The farmers had also issued notice to the insurance company in respect
of the plant, machinery and building but this claim was repudiated by the
insurance company on the additional ground that the farmers had no
locus standi to make the claim as the insured was the cold store and
C not the farmers. It was further pleaded that Condition No.8 of the
insurance policy had been violated, and that there was no privity of
contract between the farmers and the insurance company. Since the
claims of the farmers were either rejected or not answered, they filed
claim petitions against the cold store, the Bank and the insurance company
D in which the primary relief claimed was the value of the agricultural
produce as on the date of fire and interest thereupon and each of the
farmers also claimed damages of Rs.1,00,000/- per head. There were
91 claim petitions filed and in most of them the agricultural produce was
Byadgi Chilli. In a few petitions, the agricultural produce was Dabbi
Chilli, Guntur Chilli, Bengal Gram, Coriander (Dhania), Jwar etc.
E However, this will not have any material impact on the decision of these
cases. The details containing the name of the claimants, the nature of
the produce, number of bags and quantity thereof, rate, and number of
kilograms have been set out in Para 7 of the judgment of the National
Commission which we are not reproducing for the sake of brevity.
F 5. In the claims filed it was pleaded that the cold store while
levying the general charges had also charged the insurance premium
paid by it. It would be pertinent to mention that a tripartite agreement
had been entered into by each one of the farmers while taking a loan
from the Bank and hypothecating the agricultural produce which was
G stored in the cold store. The farmer, the Bank, and the cold store were
parties to the tripartite agreement. The cold store issued a warehouse
receipt giving the particulars of the crop stored, the value thereof and
also the date of the tripartite agreement. For the period in question i.e.
from 2012-2013 till the occurrence of fire, the cold store was admittedly
insured with the insurance company. The plant and machinery of the
H
CANARA BANK v. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. 507
LTD. & ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]
cold store was insured for Rs.5 crores and the stocks were insured for A
Rs.30 crores.
6. The case of the farmers was that in terms of the tripartite
agreement, the cold store had got the stocks insured from the insurance
company. The fire was an accidental fire and, therefore, in terms of the
policy, the insurance company was liable to pay the amount of value of B
the agricultural produce stored with the cold store as on the date of fire
and was also liable to pay interest on the amount payable. The insurance
company resisted the complaint mainly on the ground that the ‘farmers’
were not ‘consumers’ within the meaning of Consumer Protection Act,
1986, hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’. It was also claimed that there
was no privity of contract between the farmers and the insurance C
company because the policy was taken by the cold store and not by the
farmers. It was alleged that the entire story of loans was a false story.
On merits, any conceivable objection which could be taken was taken.
The insurance company went to the extent of denying that the claimants
were farmers or they had produced the agricultural produce or that they D
had stored it in the cold store. It was also alleged that the Bank was
negligent as it did not take any step to recover the amount due for more
than two years. The case of the insurance company is that nobody in his
right mind would store agricultural produce for such a long period of
time. Therefore, the very genuineness of the tripartite agreement was
challenged. The other main ground taken was that the fire was not an E
accident and there was no spontaneous combustion on account of
electrical short circuit. According to the insurance company, there was
an element of arson involved and the cold store seems to have been
deliberately set on fire.
7. The stand of the cold store was that the fire was accidental F
and that since the stock was insured, the amount was payable by the
insurance company. The Bank supported the claim of the farmers with
the caveat that the amount should be paid to it so that it could set it off
against the loans advanced to the farmers.
8. The Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal G
Commission at Bangalore, hereinafter referred to as ‘the State
Commission’ vide judgment dated 28.04.2017 held that the farmers had
proved that the fire took place on account of electrical short circuit and
no element of human intervention or use of kerosene was found. The
State Commission also found that as per the tripartite agreement entered H
508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.
A into between the farmers, the Bank and the cold store, it was mandatory
for the cold store to insure the goods so hypothecated by the farmers
with the Bank. The insurance company was held liable to pay the amount
to the farmers. The State Commission assessed the value of the goods
by taking the value as reflected in the warehouse receipts issued at the
time of taking of loan and did not accept the plea of the farmers that
B
they should get the market value of the goods as on the date of fire. The
Bank was also held deficient in service. The cold store and the insurance
company were held jointly and severely liable and were directed to pay
the value of the agricultural produce hypothecated with the Bank to the
farmers/claimants as on the date of tripartite agreement together with
C the interest at the rate of 14% per annum payable from six months from
the date of the incident till the date of realisation. One complaint being
Complaint No.597 of 2015 was dismissed. In some of the complaints,
the Bank was also held jointly and severely liable to pay the costs of
Rs.10,000/- whereas in a large number of cases the complaint against
the Bank was dismissed.
D
9. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 28.04.2017 of the
State Commission, an appeal was filed before the National Commission.
By the impugned judgment, the National Commission concurred with
the findings of the State Commission and held that the farmers are
consumers. It held that the insurance company was aware of the fact
E that the goods were held in trust. It further held that there is no evidence
to show that the fire was not an accidental fire or that the fire had been
started by the owner of the cold store. However, it partly allowed the
appeal of the insurance company and reduced the interest from 14%
per annum to 12% per annum. The farmers had also filed appeal claiming
F that in terms of the insurance policy they should have been paid the
value of the goods as on the date of fire. However, this claim was rejected
basically on the ground that the farmers had failed to show that the chilli
and/or other produce stored is of the same class and characteristics as
reflected in the Variety-wise Periodic Report of the Bengaluru Market
for different commodities. As far as the appeals filed by the Bank were
G concerned, the National Commission held that in the peculiar facts of
the case where the farmers had suffered substantial losses, the principal
amount of loan advanced by the Bank would be remitted by the insurance
company to the Bank but the other amount i.e. interest and damages,
would be given to the farmers. It was also held that there was no
H
CANARA BANK v. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. 509
LTD. & ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]
deficiency of service on behalf of the Bank and the costs imposed on A
the Bank in some of the cases were set aside.
10. Before this Court, appeals have been filed by the insurance
company, the farmers, the cold store and the Bank.
11. We have heard Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned senior counsel
appearing for the insurance company, Dr. Rajeev Dhavan and Shri Gopal B
Shankaranarayanan, learned senior counsel appearing for the farmers,
Shri Sajan Poovayya, learned senior counsel appearing for the cold store
and Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel appearing for the Bank.
Appeals of the Insurance Company
C
12. Shri P.P. Malhotra, learned senior counsel appearing for the
insurance company raised several issues for consideration of this Court.
One of the contentions raised by him is that the fire in question was not
an accidental fire. It is also contended that the farmers were not
consumers and therefore the consumer fora have no jurisdiction to decide
the dispute. He next contends that there is no privity of contract between D
the farmers and the insurance company. According to him, a contract of
insurance is to be strictly construed between the parties to the contract.
He submits that there was no insurable interest of the farmers and the
tripartite agreement entered between the Bank, the farmers and the
cold store was never disclosed to the insurance company. He further E
submits that there is non-disclosure of important facts by the cold store
(insured) and, as such, the insurance company is not liable. He also
urged that the liability of the insurance company is excluded by virtue of
General Exclusion Clause 5 and General Condition no.1 and General
Condition no.8 of the insurance policy.
F
Whether the fire was an accident?
13. As far as this issue is concerned, both the State Commission
and the National Commission have come to the conclusion that the fire
was an accidental fire and occurred due to a short circuit. These are
pure findings of fact which, in our view, cannot be challenged in these
G
proceedings. However, since lengthy arguments were addressed by Shri
P. P. Malhotra in this behalf, we shall deal with the same. At the outset,
we may note that the electrical inspector, the police investigation team
and the forensic science laboratory (FSL) have all come to the conclusion
that the fire took place due to a short circuit. The concluding portion of
the report of the FSL reads as follows:- H
510 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.
A “From the above examination, the following observations have
been made
1. Presence of combustible materials like thermocol (which are
used to insulate the walls) pillars, wooden partitions and the grains
stored inside the building could have enhanced the spread of fire.
B 2. The congested space in the building might have accelerated
the smoldering fire.
3. The fire might have originated at the sixth floor front side of the
building. But it was not possible to locate the exact place of origin
of fire since the complete building was involved in fire.
C
4. An electrical short circuit may have initiated the fire.”
The insurance company relies upon the findings given by a
company namely Truth Labs and those of Rank Surveyors Private Limited,
which read as follows:-
D “Based on a thorough and in-depth inspection of the incident site,
forensic examinations, field investigations, documentary evidence
analysis and personal evidence obtained, it is concluded that the
fire occurred in M/s. Sree Devi Cold Storage, Billary on the
intervening night of 13/14th January 2014.
E a. Was not due to spontaneous combustion on account of bacterial/
chemical fires.
b. Was not due to electrical failure caused by short circuit.
c. And was on account of extraneous ignitable fire accelerants
such as kerosene used deliberately for ignition, initiation,
F propagation and burning of stocks in the cold storage through human
intervention.
d. Based on the motive, means and opportunity to carry out such
malicious acts the possibility of the involvement of management
in such a nefarious act cannot be ruled out.”
G
14. We may note that it is not disputed that in the construction of
the cold store, the temperature was maintained by insulating the walls of
the cold store. Bitumen (coal tar) and Thermocol were used for providing
insulation. The FSL found that in a fire which takes place in a building
where such material is used for construction, hydro carbons would
H
CANARA BANK v. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. 511
LTD. & ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]
obviously be present. On the other hand, M/s. Truth Labs mainly relied A
upon the presence of hydro carbons to come to the conclusion that the
fire had not occurred spontaneously and on account of electrical short
circuit but occurred on account of extraneous ignitable fire accelerants
such as kerosene. The conclusions of M/s. Truth Labs were based on
some inspection and chemical analysis carried out by a team headed by
B
Dr. R. Srinivas. Admittedly, this report of Dr. R. Srinivas was never
furnished to the parties nor was placed before the State Commission.
Interestingly, when Mr. G. V. H. V. Prasad, Director of M/s. Truth Labs
was put a specific query whether the walls of the ground floor and the
top floor and the inside portion of the cold store along with 169 pillars
were constructed by sandwiching bitumen and thermocol between the C
concrete in order to raise the level of insulation, he replied that ‘he was
not aware of how the Cold Storage was built’. This clearly shows the
shoddy manner in which M/s. Truth Labs conducted the investigation.
There can be no proper investigation of a fire if the investigating agency
does not even try to find out what is the nature of construction of the
D
building which has been destroyed in the fire. M/s. Truth Labs has clearly
stated that the observation that fire took place on account of extraneous
ignitable fire accelerants, is based on the chemical analysis report which
shows presence of hydro carbons in the debris. It is apparent that
M/s. Truth Labs, for reasons best known to it, did not analyse the material
used for construction because if it had done so, it would have realised E
that hydro carbons would be present when thermocol or bitumen are
burnt. Thermocol is basically a rigid plastic foam material which is derived
from petroleum and natural gas by-products. Bitumen is a semi-solid
hydrocarbon product produced from crude oil. Both thermocol and bitumen
are derivatives of petroleum products and hence are hydrocarbons by
F
their very nature. Therefore, presence of hydrocarbons would be natural
when a fire takes place. The presence of hydro carbon could not lead to
a conclusion that kerosene oil had been used to ignite the fire.
15. The National Commission has also dealt in detail with this
issue and has come to the conclusion that M/s. Truth Labs visited the
burnt cold store on two occasions and collected samples on both the G
occasions. It, however, decided to send 12 samples collected only in the
second visit for analysis. Interestingly, the controlled samples were
collected from a plastic bag containing (fresh unaffected) chillies found
in the burnt stock of the affected premises. The controlled samples did
H
512 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.
A not show presence of hydro carbons and hence, the assumption that the
presence of hydro carbons in the remaining samples was not relatable to
thermocol and tar. There is no explanation why the samples taken on the
first visit were not sent for analysis. It is also difficult to believe that in a
building which has been totally gutted in a fire, there would be one plastic
bag containing (fresh unaffected) chillies found in the burnt stock. It is
B
possible that these unburnt chillies may have been introduced later on.
Therefore, we cannot place any reliance on the report of M/s. Truth
Labs.
16. In any event, neither in the report of M/s. Truth Labs nor in
the other reports by the insurance company is there anything to show
C that the insured had set the cold store on fire. Whether the fire took
place by a short circuit or any other reason, as long as insured is not the
person who caused the fire, the insurance company cannot escape its
liability in terms of the insurance policy. We reject the contention of the
insurance company that the fire was ignited by the use of kerosene and
D hence it is not liable.
Rule of Strict Interpretation
17. It has been submitted on behalf of the insurance company
that the terms of the insurance policy should be construed strictly and
since only the insurance company and the cold store (insured) were
E parties to the contract of insurance, the insurance company will not be
liable to pay any claim to the farmers. Various authorities were cited by
both sides.
18. In United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Harchand Rai
Chandan Lal1 this Court held as follows:-
F
“9….It is settled law that terms of the policy shall govern the
contract between the parties, they have to abide by the definition
given therein and all those expressions appearing in the policy
should be interpreted with reference to the terms of policy and
not with reference to the definition given in other laws. It is a
G matter of contract and in terms of the contract the relation of the
parties shall abide and it is presumed that when the parties have
entered into a contract of insurance with their eyes wide open,
they cannot rely on the definition given in other enactment….”
1
H (2004) 8 SCC 644
CANARA BANK v. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. 513
LTD. & ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]
19. Reliance was placed on Raghunath Rai Bareja v. Punjab A
National Bank2 wherein it was held:
“58. We may mention here that the literal rule of interpretation is
not only followed by judges and lawyers, but it is also followed by
the layman in his ordinary life. To give an illustration, if a person
says “this is a pencil”, then he means that it is a pencil; and it is B
not that when he says that the object is a pencil, he means that it
is a horse, donkey or an elephant. In other words, the literal rule
of interpretation simply means that we mean what we say and
we say what we mean. If we do not follow the literal rule of
interpretation, social life will become impossible, and we will not
understand each other. If we say that a certain object is a book, C
then we mean it is a book. If we say it is a book, but we mean it
is a horse, table or an elephant, then we will not be able to
communicate with each other. Life will become impossible. Hence,
the meaning of the literal rule of interpretation is simply that we
mean what we say and we say what we mean.” D
20. Reliance was also placed on the following paragraph in Suraj
Mal Ram Niwas Oil Mills (P) Ltd. v. United India Insurance Co.
Ltd.3:
“26. Thus, it needs little emphasis that in construing the terms of
a contract of insurance, the words used therein must be given E
paramount importance, and it is not open for the court to add,
delete or substitute any words. It is also well settled that since
upon issuance of an insurance policy, the insurer undertakes to
indemnify the loss suffered by the insured on account of risks
covered by the policy, its terms have to be strictly construed to F
determine the extent of liability of the insurer. Therefore, the
endeavour of the court should always be to interpret the words in
which the contract is expressed by the parties.”
21. The principles relating to interpretation of insurance policies
are well settled and not in dispute. At the same time, the provisions of G
the policy must be read and interpreted in such a manner so as to give
effect to the reasonable expectations of all the parties including the insured
and the beneficiaries. It is also well settled that coverage provisions
2
(2007) 2 SCC 230
3
(2010) 10 SCC 567 H
514 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.
A should be interpreted broadly and if there is any ambiguity, the same
should be resolved in favour of the insured. On the other hand, the
exclusion clauses must be read narrowly. The policy and its components
must be read as a whole and given a meaning which furthers the
expectations of the parties and also the business realities. According to
us, the entire policy should be understood and examined in such a manner
B
and when that is done, the interpretation becomes a commercially sensible
interpretation. As far as the present case is concerned, if we read the
tripartite agreement along with the terms of the policy it is obvious that
the Bank insisted that the stock be insured. The farmers were told that
they would pay the premium. The cold store while fixing the rent obviously
C factored the premium into the rent. It was obvious that the intention of
the parties was that they would be compensated by the insurance
company in case of any untoward loss.
Whether the farmers are consumers and the issue of privity
of contract
D 22. One of the main grounds of attack to the judgments of both
the State Commission and the National Commission on behalf of the
insurance company is that the farmer is not a consumer insofar as the
insurance company is concerned. The contention is based on the ground
that the insurance policy is admittedly only between the insurance
E company and the cold store. It is further urged by Shri Malhotra that the
claim of the cold store for damage to the building, plants and machinery
was repudiated by the insurance company on 16.09.2015. The cold store
has not challenged the repudiation. Thereafter, all the complaints have
been filed through one counsel which indicates that they have been
orchestrated by the cold store itself. It is also submitted that the tripartite
F agreement is not relevant as far as the insurance company is concerned
since the insurance company is not a signatory to the tripartite agreement.
It is further contended that the coverage for the goods was only for the
goods owned by the cold store and not by the farmers who are in the
nature of third parties. It is contended that in some cases the tripartite
G agreement has not even been signed by the Bank.
23. On the other hand, on behalf of the farmers, it is submitted
that they paid rent to the cold store which included the element of
insurance. It is submitted that the crops were given on contractual
bailment to the cold store for a valuable consideration and, therefore, the
H cold store held the goods as a bailee on behalf of the farmers. It is also
CANARA BANK v. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. 515
LTD. & ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]
submitted that in terms of the tripartite agreement, the cold store was A
bound to take out an insurance policy and the crops and the premises
were separately insured and the insurance was renewed every time for
a period of 3 years. It is also submitted that insurance company was
aware that the insurance policy had been taken for the benefit of the
real owners i.e. farmers.
B
24. To decide these issues, it would be apposite to refer to the
definition of ‘consumer’ under Section 2(d) of the Act, which reads as
follows:-
“2 Definitions. - (1) In this Act, unless the context otherwise
requires,- C
xxx xxx xxx
(d) “consumer” means any person who, -
(i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or
promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system D
of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other
than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or
promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system
of deferred payment, when such used is made with the approval
of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such
goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or E
(ii) hires or avails of any services for a consideration which has
been paid or promised or partly paid and partly promised, or under
any system of deferred payment and includes any beneficiary of
such services other than the person who hires or avails of the
services for consideration paid or promised, or partly paid and F
partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment, when
such services are availed of with the approval of the first mentioned
person…;”
25. The definition of consumer under the Act is very wide and it
not only includes the person who hires or avails of the services for G
consideration but also includes the beneficiary of such services who
may be a person other than the person who hires or avails of services.
26. Taking the issue of privity of contract, we are of the considered
view that as far as the Act is concerned, it is not necessary that there
should be privity of contract between the insurance company and the H
516 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.
A claimants. The definition of consumer under Section 2(d) quoted
hereinabove is in 2 parts. Sub-clause (i) of Section 2(1)(d) deals with a
person who buys any goods and includes any user of such goods other
than the person who buys such goods as long as the use is made with the
approval of such person. Therefore, the definition of consumer even in
B the 1st part not only includes the person who has purchased but includes
any user of the goods so long as such user is made with the approval of
the person who has purchased the goods. As far as the definition of the
consumer in relation to hiring or availing of services is concerned, the
definition, in our view, is much wider. In this part of the section, consumer
includes not only the person who has hired or availed of the services but
C also includes any beneficiary of such services. Therefore, an insured
could be a person who hires or avails of the services of the insurance
company but there could be many other persons who could be the
beneficiaries of the services. It is not necessary that those beneficiaries
should be parties to the contract of insurance. They are the consumers
D not because they are parties to the contract of insurance but because
they are the beneficiaries of the policy taken out by the insured.
27. The definition of consumer under the Act is very wide and it
includes beneficiaries who can take benefit of the insurance availed by
the insured. As far as the present case is concerned, under the tripartite
agreement entered between the Bank, the cold store and the farmers,
E
the stock of the farmers was hypothecated as security with the Bank
and the Bank had insisted that the said stock should be insured with a
view to safeguard its interest. We may refer to the penultimate clause of
the tripartite agreement which reads as follows:-
“WHEREAS the Third Party has agreed to insure the produce/
F goods stored in the cold storage to indemnify the produce in case
of any casualty or accident by any means to cover the risk and
also to cover the loan amount to avoid loss at the cost of the
Second Party till the release order or repayment of the loan
amount.”
G 28. The aforesaid clause in unambiguous terms binds the cold
store to insure the goods, to indemnify the produce, to cover the risk and
cover the loan amount. This insurance policy has to be taken at the cost
of the second party which is the farmer. Therefore, there can be no
manner of doubt that the farmer is a beneficiary under the policy. The
H farmer is, therefore, definitely a consumer and we uphold the orders of
both the Commissions that the complaint under the Act is maintainable.
CANARA BANK v. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. 517
LTD. & ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]
29. Shri Malhotra in support of his argument relied upon the A
judgement of this Court in M. C. Chacko v. The State Bank of
Travancore, Trivandrum4 wherein the appellant as Manager of High
Land Bank, Kottayam, had an overdraft account with the Bank. The
father of the appellant had executed letters of guarantee in favour of
Bank agreeing to pay the amounts due to the Bank under the overdraft
B
agreement subject to a limit of Rs.20,000/-. The Court held:-
“10. Even if it be granted that there was an intention to create a
charge, the Kottayam Bank not being a party to the deed could
enforce the charge only if it was a beneficiary under the terms of
the contract, and it is not claimed that the Bank was a beneficiary
under the deed Ext. D-1. The suit against M.C. Chacko must C
therefore be dismissed.”
30. We are of the view that this judgment has no relevance to the
case before us. This Court held that the Kottayam Bank was not only
not a party to the deed but was also not a beneficiary under the contract.
In our opinion, the Consumer Protection Act clearly provides that a D
beneficiary of the services, other than the insured is a consumer under
the Act.
General Exclusion Clause No.5
31. It has been urged that there is violation of Clause 5 of the E
policy under the heading of General Exclusion wherein losses of certain
types have not been covered. The said clause reads as follows:-
“5. Loss, destruction or damage to bullion or unset precious stones,
any curios or works of art for an amount exceeding Rs.10000/-
goods held in trust or on commission, manuscripts, plans, drawings, F
securities, obligations or documents of any (illegible) stamps, coins
or paper money, cheques, books of accounts or other business
books, computer systems records, explosives unless otherwise
expressly stated in the policy.”
32. The argument raised by Shri Malhotra is that since the goods
G
were held in trust by the cold store, the insurance company is not liable.
We are not at all impressed with this argument. This is not a case where
the goods were deposited only on the basis of trust. The goods were
kept in the cold store on payment of rent by the farmer. This is not a
4
(1969) 2 SCC 343 H
518 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.
A case envisaged under Exclusion Clause 5 quoted hereinabove. These
goods were also not held on commission. Shri Rajeev Dhavan, learned
senior counsel appearing for the farmers submits that the relationship
between the farmer and the cold store was of bailor and bailee. He
submits that the crops were given on contractual bailment to the cold
store for consideration.
B
33. In the present case, as pointed out above, the farmer had
agreed to pay consideration to the cold store and, therefore, the goods
were not held in trust per se but the goods were held by cold store as
bailee of the goods for consideration. The possession of the farm produce
was handed over by the bailor, i.e. farmer to the cold store i.e. the bailee,
C in terms of the contract. There may be inter se rights and liabilities
between the farmer and the cold store but it cannot be said that the
goods were held ‘in trust’. The goods were also not held ‘on commission’.
No commission was payable and only rental was paid. Therefore, we
reject this argument on behalf of the insurance company.
D General Condition Nos. 1 & 8:
34. Shri Malhotra has placed reliance on Condition Nos. 1 & 8 of
Part B of the General Conditions of the Insurance Policy:-
“(B) GENERAL CONDITIONS:
E 1. This policy shall be voidable in the event of misrepresentation,
mis-description or non- disclosure of any material particular.
xxx xxx xxx
8. If the claim be in any respect fraudulent, or if any false
declaration be made or used in support thereof or if any fraudulent
F
means or devices are used by the insured or anyone acting on his
behalf to obtain any benefit under the policy or if the loss or damage
be occasioned by the willful act, or with the connivance of the
insured, all benefits under this policy shall be forfeited.”
35. The contention of Shri Malhotra is that the insurance company
G was not informed by the Bank, the cold store or the farmers that the
farm produce or the insured goods belong to the farmers and therefore
the policy is voidable. At the outset, we may note that misrepresentation
or misdescription only makes the policy voidable. The insurance company
never chose to declare the policy void for 3 long years when it was in
H existence and, at this stage, cannot be permitted to wriggle out of its
CANARA BANK v. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. 519
LTD. & ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]
liability by taking this objection. Even otherwise, we are of the view that A
the submission made on behalf of the insurance company is without any
substance. The policies of insurance clearly show that the premises was
separately insured for Rs.5 crores and the stock in trade were insured
for Rs.30 crores. This insurance was taken not only for the year when
the fire took place but was renewed for 3 long years. The insurance
B
policy had an Agreed Bank Clause which reads as follows:-
“(1) AGREED BANK CLAUSE:
It is hereby declared and agreed:-
(i) That upon any monies becoming payable under this policy the
same shall be paid by the company to the bank and such part of C
any monies so paid as may relate to the interests of other parties
insured hereunder shall be received by the Bank as Agents for
such other parties.
(ii) That the receipts of the Bank shall be complete discharge of
the company thereon and shall be binding on all the parties insured D
hereunder.”
36. The aforesaid clause itself clearly indicates that it was agreed
by the insurance company that upon any amount being payable under
the policy in question, the same would be paid to the Bank and the amount
so paid “may relate to the interests of other parties”. The said amount E
would be received by the Bank as agent for other parties. Therefore,
the insurance policy itself envisaged that there were interest of other
parties and not only the Bank and the insured. Therefore, it was for the
insurance company to verify and find out who was the owner of the
goods. It could not presume that all the goods belong to the cold store. F
The assumption of the insurance company that it had insured the goods
belonging to the cold store itself has no factual basis. It is a well-known
fact that cold stores are constructed in such a way that there are many
compartments in the cold store. Any person can deposit a small or large
amount of goods to be kept in cold store. Normally, it is the goods of
third parties which are stored in a cold store and, therefore, we are G
dealing with a policy of insurance whereby the premises and the stock
and goods in a cold store have been insured. The natural corollary would
be that the insurance company should have known that the goods belong
to the third parties. From the policy of insurance, we find that in respect
of description of risk, the insurance covers “Stock of Guntur Chillies/
H
520 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.
A Byadigi Chillies/Other variety Chillies, Jawar Seeds, Bengal Garam, Red
Gram, Tambrind, Coriander Seeds & Other pulses.”
37. This stock in trade was covered for a sum of Rs.30 crores
and premium was charged accordingly. A prudent insurance company
before issuing a policy of such a heavy amount, must or at least should
B have ascertained the value and the nature of the goods. The insurance
company before us is one of the largest nationalised insurance companies
and a presumption has to be drawn that it must have verified the details
before insurance policy was issued. If verification had been done by a
visit to the cold store, it could have been easily found out who are the
owners of the stock. In case, the insurance company has chosen not to
C verify the stock it cannot take advantage of its own negligence. The
principle of berrima fides has no application because the cold store had
declared all necessary facts. The bank clause clearly indicated that the
goods were hypothecated/pledged to the Bank. Therefore, the insurance
company now cannot turn around and claim that the names of the owners
D were not supplied to it at the time of insurance. We also cannot lose
sight of the fact that the insurance policy was renewed at least twice.
Therefore, the policy was in existence for 3 years and it is in the 3rd year
that the fire took place. If the insurance company chooses not to even
write a letter to the insured or take any steps to verify the value of the
goods and ownership of the goods, it cannot now turn around and urge
E that it was not aware about the nature or ownership of the goods.
Fraudulent Claim
38. The insurance company also contends that the whole scheme
is fraudulent and that no farmer in his right senses would store agricultural
F produce for such a long time. This argument is totally baseless.
39. Byadgi Chilli is the major component of the goods that were
stored in the cold store. It is a very famous variety of chilli and is produced
in two types – dabbi and kaddi. One of the main uses of this chilli is not
only as an item of food but as an item to extract red colour pigment
G which is used in the manufacture of lipsticks, nail polishes, and other
cosmetics etc. The material extracted is called oleoresin, which is a red
oil extracted from the pods. Many cold stores have been constructed in
the area where this chilli is grown because if these chillies are stored at
a low temperature of 4 to 6 degree Celsius, the colour and purity is
maintained and it also increases the amount of oleoresin which can be
H extracted from chilli by about 30% to 40%. As such the farmers took a
CANARA BANK v. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. 521
LTD. & ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]
commercial decision to store the chillies because after storing it, the A
value would go higher.
40. The insurance company also urged that some of the tripartite
agreements are not signed by the officials of the Bank. It is urged that
this shows that the agreements cannot be relied upon. We are not at all
in agreement with this submission. As long as the parties to the tripartite B
agreement i.e. the Bank, the farmer and the cold store, are not disputing
the correctness of the agreement, there is no reason why we should not
accept the same to be a genuine document.
Non-disclosure of material facts:
41. It has been urged on behalf of the insurance company that C
while submitting the proposal form on 21.03.2013, the cold store had not
listed out the names of the parties who had an insurable interest including
the financial institutions. It is, therefore, submitted that the cold store
deliberately did not disclose the fact that the produce belonged to the
farmers. Shri Malhotra placed reliance on the judgment in Satwant Kaur D
Sandhu v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd.5 wherein it was held that:
“25. The upshot of the entire discussion is that in a contract of
insurance, any fact which would influence the mind of a prudent
insurer in deciding whether to accept or not to accept the risk is a
“material fact”. If the proposer has knowledge of such fact, he is E
obliged to disclose it particularly while answering questions in the
proposal form. Needless to emphasise that any inaccurate answer
will entitle the insurer to repudiate his liability because there is
clear presumption that any information sought for in the proposal
form is material for the purpose of entering into a contract of
insurance.” F
42. At the outset, we may mention that the initial insurance policy
was taken in the year 2011, if not earlier, and that proposal form was
very material. The same has not been produced by the insurance company
before us. Thereafter, it was only renewal of the policy. Furthermore, if
a column is left blank, again the insurance company should have asked G
the insured to fill in the column. There is no wrong information given in
the proposal form though it may be true that all the requisite information
was not supplied. The column requires listing out the parties who have
an insurable interest including financial institutions. Since the policy had
5
(2009) 8 SCC 316 H
522 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.
A a bank clause, the name of Canara Bank should have been mentioned in
column 5. That was not there. If the insurance company while accepting
the proposal form does not ask the insured to clarify any ambiguities
then the insurance company after accepting the premium cannot now
urge that there was a wrong declaration made by the insured. In case
the insured had written that there were no persons who had an insurable
B
interest, the position may have been different but leaving out the column
blank does not mean that there was some misdeclaration of facts. We
are, therefore, clearly of the view that the judgment of this Court in
Satwant Kaur Sandhu’s case (supra) is not applicable to the facts of
the present case.
C 43. As already held above, the insurance company itself could
have also taken some initiative in the matter. To make a contract void
the non-disclosure should be of some very material fact. No doubt, it
would have been better if the Bank and the insured had given at least 1
tripartite agreement to the insurance company but, in our view, in the
D peculiar facts of this case, not disclosing the tripartite agreement or the
names of the owners cannot be said to be such a material fact as to
make the policy void or voidable. We are clearly of the view that there is
no fraudulent claim made. There is no false declaration made and neither
is the loss and damage occasioned by any wilful act or connivance of
the insured.
E
44. In view of the above discussion, we are clearly of the view
that the insurance company under the insurance policy is liable to indemnify
the cold store with regard to the value of goods and since the farmers
are the beneficiaries, they are entitled to get the amount payable under
the policy. However, this will obviously be subject to the bank clause
F which we have already referred to above.
Appeal of the Bank
45. The Bank has raised objections to the interest portion of the
amount being given to the farmers. Otherwise it supports the case of the
G farmers. Reliance has been placed on the bank clause already quoted
above and it is submitted that the direction of the National Commission
to pay the interest to the farmers is against the Agreed Bank Clause in
terms of which the money is to be paid to the Bank till the outstandings
of the Bank are covered. Shri Dhruv Mehta, learned senior counsel for
the Bank submits that since the farmers are claiming benefit of the policy,
H
CANARA BANK v. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. 523
LTD. & ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]
they cannot urge that the bank clause is not applicable. It is further A
submitted by him that the National Commission has to decide questions
on the basis of legal considerations and equitable considerations or equity
has no role to play in such matters. On the other hand, it has been urged
by Dr. Rajeev Dhavan that the bank clause is only a processual clause.
46. We cannot accept the submission of Dr. Dhavan that the bank B
clause lays down only a process. The insurance policy is a contract and
the amount has to be paid as per the terms of the contract. In our view,
the National Commission could not have ordered that the interest on the
amount payable to the farmers should not be paid to the Bank till the
liabilities of the Bank are paid out. Arguments have been addressed
before us that this Court may exercise its power under Article 142 of the C
Constitution of India to ensure that justice is done to the farmers. We
feel that there is no need to invoke the jurisdiction under Article 142
because even after paying off the dues of the Bank, some amount of the
value of the goods along with interest thereupon will be payable to the
farmers. D
Whether there was a deficiency in service on the part of
the Bank
47. It was urged on behalf of the insurance company that there is
deficiency of service by the Bank and, in fact, it was argued that the
Bank connived with the farmers because it did not get the valuation of E
the products done properly and further, it took no steps to sell the
agricultural produce after one year which liberty it had in terms of the
tripartite agreement. We find no force in this argument. As already pointed
out above, the value of Byadgi chillies which was the major agricultural
produce stored in the cold store rises the longer it is kept in the cold F
store. Therefore, the Bank could have taken a commercial decision not
to sell the produce because the product was not deteriorating in any
manner and its value was not diminishing.
48. The State Commission had held that there was deficiency on
behalf of the Bank in rendering services but the National Commission G
held otherwise. We are of the view that the Bank was remiss to a limited
extent. When the Bank issues loans against the hypothecation of goods,
as in the present case, and insists that the goods should be insured to
safeguard its outstandings then a duty lies upon the Bank to inform the
insurance company of the policy. If both the Bank and the insurance
H
524 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.
A company had done what would be expected of good financial institutions,
there would have been no needless litigation. The matter has dragged to
this stage only because the names of the farmers were not mentioned in
the policy or because the tripartite agreement was not handed over to
the insurance company. The Bank, as a prudent financial institution, should
have insisted that the tripartite agreement should also be handed over to
B
the insurance company. Therefore, we feel that there is some level of
deficiency on behalf of the Bank.
49. In view of the aforesaid, we feel that the Bank cannot claim
interest at the contractual rate and is not entitled to claim interest at the
contractual rate because the farmers have been driven through a long
C drawn litigation which could have been easily avoided if the Bank had
itself sent the copy of the tripartite agreement to the insurance company
or insisted that the insured should send the same to the insurance
company. We accordingly hold that the Bank cannot claim interest at
the contractual rate. We are therefore, of the view that the Bank would
D be entitled to charge simple interest right from the date of grant of loan
at the rate of 12% per annum.
The amount of claim payable:
50. The farmers in their appeal have claimed that in terms of the
policy of insurance the value of the goods was to be assessed on the
E date of fire and the value was not to be assessed as mentioned on the
date when the goods were stored in the cold store. In this regard, we
may make reference to the opening portion of the insurance policy wherein
the insurance company has agreed to insure the goods. Relevant portion
of the insurance policy reads as follows:-
F “IN CONSIDERATION of the insured named in the schedule
hereto having paid to the United India Insurance Company Limited
(hereinafter called the Company) the full premium mentioned in
the said schedule. The Company Agrees (Subject to the conditions
and exclusions contained herein or endorsed or otherwise
G expressed hereon) that if after payment of the premium the
property insured described in the said schedule or any part of
such property be destroyed or damaged by any of the perils
specified hereunder during the period of insurance named in the
said schedule or of any subsequent period in respect of which the
insured shall have paid and the Company shall have accepted
H the premium required for the renewal of the policy, the
CANARA BANK v. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. 525
LTD. & ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]
Company shall pay to the insured the value of the property A
at the time of the happening of its destruction or the amount
of such damage or at its option reinstate or replace such
property or any part thereof.”
51. The highlighted portion of the aforesaid clause leaves no
manner of doubt that the insurance company in consideration of the B
premium received had agreed to either reinstate the goods or replace
the same or pay to the insured the value of the property at the time of
happening of its destruction or damage. The State Commission and the
National Commission had rejected the claim of the farmers in this regard
on the ground that the variety-wise periodic report of the Bengaluru
market, produced by the farmers, showed that the range between C
minimum and maximum price for Byadgi and Guntur chillies etc. is very
vast and to arrive at an average price would mean construing that all the
chillies are of standard quality. According to the National Commission,
this would be a speculative exercise based on the assumption that the
entire quantity of chillies is of the same class and characteristic. D
52. At the time when the farmers deposited the goods with the
cold store there were handed over warehouse receipts which not only
gave identity of the agricultural produce but also reflected the quantity
of the agricultural produce and its market value on the date when this
produce was stored in the cold store. However, the quality of the produce E
is not reflected in the warehouse receipts.
53. Though we hold that in terms of the clause discussed above
the insurance company is liable to pay the value of the goods as on the
date of the fire, we feel that the National Commission was right when it
came to the conclusion that it was not possible to award an amount F
based on the variety-wise periodic report of the Bengaluru market. This
is the only evidence produced by the farmers and brought to our notice
to support their contention. The National Commission is right that the
difference between minimum price for which this product was sold during
the period 14.12.2013 to 14.01.2014 and the maximum price for the
same agricultural produce during this period is so high that without exactly G
knowing what was the quality of agricultural produce, it would not be
possible to ascertain what was the price on the date of fire. To give an
example, Byadgi chillies have a price range of Rs. 3,200 per quintal to
Rs. 17,300 per quintal i.e. Rs.32 per kilogram to Rs.173 per kilogram.
There is no way for any Court to determine what the exact price would H
526 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2020] 7 S.C.R.
A have been without having the benefit of the quality of produce.
Unfortunately, even in the warehouse receipts there is no gradation or
reflection of the quality of the produce.
54. We, therefore, affirm the decision of the National Commission
that the value of the goods as reflected in the warehouse receipts should
B be taken to be the value on the date of fire. We may add that this value
is not very different from the median value for most of the products. We
rely upon the value given in the warehouse receipts because that was
the value which was given by the farmers, not knowing that their product
is going to be burnt, and was accepted by the cold store, which must
have known the value of the product in the local market and accepted
C by the Bank, which on the basis of such surety advanced the loan.
55. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that
the Bank shall be entitled to recover the principal amount advanced by it
to each one of the farmers along with the simple interest at the rate of
12% per annum from the date of advancing of loan till repayment thereof.
D The insurance company is liable to pay the value of goods as reflected in
the warehouse receipts of each farmer along with simple interest at the
rate of 12% per annum from the date of fire till payment of the amount.
The dues of the Bank till the date of fire will have to be first determined
and, thereafter, the excess will be payable to the farmer along with the
E interest.
56. To clarify the issue we take the example of the first farmer-
Thippa Reddy at Sr. No.1, in whose Account No.1425844005736, the
loan of Rs.10,00,000/- was sanctioned on 30.08.2011. The insurance
company has worked out his outstanding on the date of incident at
F Rs.13,57,307/- whereas the value of the goods was 2,00,2000 as per the
warehouse receipt. If we calculate simple interest at the rate of 12%
per annum on Rs.10,00,000/- from 30.08.2011 till 14.01.2014, it works
out to Rs.2,84,712/- approximately. Obviously, if the farmer has paid any
amount towards the loan that will also have to be adjusted but for the
sake of clarification, we are assuming that no amount has been paid.
G Therefore, with effect from 14.01.2014, the insurance company shall be
liable to pay interest on 10,00,000/- at the rate of 12% per annum to the
Bank and shall also be liable to pay a sum of Rs.7,17,288/- along with
interest at the rate of 12% per annum from 14.01.2014 till payment to
the farmer.
H
CANARA BANK v. M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. 527
LTD. & ORS. [DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]
57. In view of the above, we dispose of the appeals with the A
following directions:
1. That the insurance company shall be liable to pay to each one
of the farmers the value of his goods to be assessed as per the
rate mentioned on the warehouse receipts when the goods were
stored in the Cold Store in terms of our direction given hereinabove B
along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of
fire till payment or deposit thereof.
2. That the Canara Bank shall file certified statements of accounts
before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission showing the principal amount of loan advanced to C
each farmer and the amount due to the Bank by calculating simple
interest @ 12% p.a. up to 13.01.2014 i.e. payable by 14.01.2014
after adjusting the payments which the Bank may have received
in the loan account.
3. The Bank in the statement of accounts shall also set out the D
amount due with the aforesaid rate of interest up to 30.04.2020.
4. The aforesaid statement be filed before the State Commission
on or before 02.03.2020.
5. That thereafter, the State Commission in each appeal shall
determine the amount payable to the farmer by calculating it in E
terms of the clarification given above i.e. after adjusting the amount
due to the Bank as on 14.01.2014. This exercise be completed on
or before 31.03.2020.
6. Out of the aforesaid amount, the Insurance Company shall pay
the amount of loan along with simple interest at the rate of 12% F
per annum from the date of advancement of loan to the date of
payment directly to the Bank.
7. Thereafter, the insurance company shall deposit the amount
payable to the farmers with the State Commission on or before
30.04.2020. G
58. All appeals are disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order
as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of.
Divya Pandey Appeals disposed of.
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "consumer protection"Sign in to search