Insurer cannot raise new grounds during proceedings if not mentioned in original repudiation letter

SC allowed appeal in insurance claim case. Insurer appointed surveyor but later repudiated claim without citing delay in intimation as ground in repudiation letter. Court held insurer cannot raise grounds not mentioned in repudiation letter during NCDRC proceedings. While appointing surveyor doesn't automatically waive policy conditions per Sonell Clocks precedent, insurer waived right to claim delay defense by omitting it from repudiation letter. NCDRC erred in rejecting claim on delay grounds. Insurer directed to pay surveyor-assessed amount of Rs. 63,43,679 with 8% interest from claim filing date.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Respondent-insurer had waived the condition relating to delay in intimation and lodging of the claim by appointing a surveyor.
2. Whether the absence of any mention of delay in intimation and violation of conditions in the repudiation letter could be taken as a defense before the NCDRC.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Waiver of Condition by Appointment of Surveyor

The Appellant contended that the Respondent-insurer waived the condition of timely intimation by appointing a surveyor, as per Clause 6(i) of the General Conditions of Policy. The Appellant relied on the precedent set in *Galada Power and Telecommunication Ltd. v. United India Insurance Company Ltd.* where the court held that by appointing a surveyor, the insurer waived the right to reject the claim based on delayed intimation.

However, the Respondent-insurer argued, supported by the judgment in *Sonell Clocks and Gifts Ltd. v. New India Assurance Company Ltd.*, that appointing a surveyor does not constitute a waiver of the condition. The court in *Sonell Clocks* distinguished *Galada*, noting that the latter was based on specific facts and did not establish a general principle. The court emphasized that the factum of waiver must be gathered from the totality of the circumstances.

The court concluded that the argument of waiver by appointing a surveyor has no legs to stand on, as per the law laid down in *Sonell Clocks*. Thus, the Respondent-insurer did not waive the condition by appointing a surveyor.

Issue 2: Absence of Mention of Delay in Repudiation Letter

The second issue was whether the insurer could raise the defense of delayed intimation for the first time before the NCDRC, given that the repudiation letter did not mention this ground. The Appellant argued that the insurer cannot travel beyond the grounds mentioned in the repudiation letter, as established in *Galada Power*.

The court noted that in *Sonell Clocks*, the insurer had explicitly mentioned the delay in the repudiation letter, which was not the case here. Therefore, the court opined that the law laid down in *Galada* still holds: an insurer cannot introduce new grounds for repudiation at the stage of hearing before the consumer forum if those grounds were not mentioned in the repudiation letter.

In this case, the repudiation letter only mentioned that the loss was not caused by fire resulting from spontaneous combustion, as required by the policy. There was no mention of delayed intimation. Thus, the court held that the NCDRC erred in rejecting the claim on the ground of delayed intimation.

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the NCDRC's judgment. The Respondent-insurer was directed to pay Rs. 63,43,679/- as assessed by the surveyor, with interest at 8% from the date of filing the claim petition until the date of payment. The payment was to be made within eight weeks, with no order as to costs.

---