WEST BENGAL STATE UNIVERSITY

KINGSTON LAW COLLEGE

(A UNIT OF KINGSTON EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTE)

REPORT OF SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: - ASSISTANT PROF.TANAYA ADHIKARY

SUBMITTED BY
NAME : MAYMUNA PARVIN
UNIVERSITY ROLL NO. : 30319011470050
UNIVERSITY REGISTRATION NO. : 3031922500050
COLLEGE ROLL NO. : 19/KLC-BALLB/20
COURSE : B.A.LL.B (5YEARS),
10TH SEMESTER
SESSION : 2019-2024

1|Pag e
 CERTIFICATE

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT MAYMUNA PARVIN, BEING A STUDENT OF KINGSTON LAW

COLLEGE, B.A.LLB 5YEARS (10th SEM), BEARING THE COLLEGE I’D- 19/KLC-B.A.LLB/20,
REGISTRATION NO. - 3031922500050 OF 2019-2024, UNDER WEST BENGAL STATE UNIVERSITY,
HAVE DONE THIS PROJECT WORK UNDER THE GUIDANCE BY ASSISTANT PROF. TANYA
ADHIKARY TO FULFILLMENT OF 5 YEARS B.A.LLB DEGREE DURING THE PERIOD OF 2019-2024.

PLACE: Kolkata
DATE:

Asst. Professor Tanya Adhikary

Kingston Law College

2|Pag e
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I, MAYMUNAPARVIN, being a Student of Kingston Law College, B.A.-LL.B. (5 Years)10th semester,

Bearing the College I’d - 19/KLC-BA-LLB/20 has Prepared this Report of Supreme Court Of India.
The Final Outcome of This Assignment Required Extensive Guidance and Assistance Which I got from our
Assistant Professor Tanya Adhikary and other Faculty Members. I Am Extremely Fortunate To Have Got
This All Along With The Completion Of My Project Work. I Respect And Thank All My Teachers For
Giving Me An Opportunity To Do This Project And Also By Providing All This Support That Was Required
To Accomplish This Project.

SINCERELY
NAME : MAYMUNA PARVIN
UNIVERSITY ROLL NO. : 30319011470050
UNIVERSITY REGISTRATION NO. : 3031922500050
COLLEGE ROLL NO. : 19/KLC-BALLB/20
COURSE : B.A.LL.B (5YEARS),
10TH SEMESTER
SESSION : 2019-2024

3|Pag e
 DECLARATION

I, MAYMUNA PARVIN, being a Student Of Kingston Law College, B.A.-LL.B (5 Years)10th

semester, Bearing The College I’d -19/KLC-BA-LLB/20, Hereby Declared That This Project Made By
Me And It Has Been Submitted For My Examination In Fulfilment, Which I Need For My University
Degree.

MAYMUNA PARVIN
B.A.-LLB (5year)
10th Semester
College I’d -19/KlC-BA-LLB/20

4|Pag e
 ABBREVIATION

In this report, various abbreviations have been utilized for brevity and to facilitate clear
communication. The following list provides the full forms of these abbreviations, organized
alphabetically for easy reference.

Abbreviatio Full Form

n
AIR All India Reporter
AI Artificial Intelligence
ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution
ART Article
BA LLB Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Legislative Law
BAR Bar Association Record
CJI Chief Justice of India
CJ Chief Justice
CPC Code of Civil Procedure
CrPC Code of Criminal Procedure
FIR First Information Report
GOI Government of India
HC High Court
IPC Indian Penal Code
IT Information Technology
J Justice (used before the name of a judge)
LJ Law Journal
LPO Legal Process Outsourcing
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
NGT National Green Tribunal
NCRB National Crime Records Bureau
PIL Public Interest Litigation
RTE Right to Education
SCC Supreme Court Cases
SC Supreme Court

5|Pag e
 TABLE OF CONTENT

Serial no. Topic Name Page No.

1 Abstract 7

2 Introduction 8

History About Supreme Court

3 Of India 9-10

Activities About Court Visit

4 11

Case Briefings
5 12-22

6 Findings of the Report 23

7 Conclusion 24

6|Pag e
 ABSTRACT

This report presents an overview of our visit to the Supreme court in India. It includes a detailed analysis of the
court’s powers and functions, summaries of key cases observed, and personal observations. The findings
highlight the critical role of the Supreme court in societal jurisprudence, demonstrating its effectiveness and
challenges. The report concludes with reflections on the importance of such specialized courts in addressing
complx in societal issues.

7|Pag e
 INTRODUCTION

The Supreme Court in India was established through an enactment passed in pre-independent India, with the
introduction of the Regulating Act, 1773. The 1st Supreme Court started its function as a court of record at
Calcutta, and the 1st Chief Justice Sir Elijah Impey was appointed. The court was established to resolve the
disputes in Bengal, Orissa, and Patna. Consequently, in 1800 and 1834, the King Gorge-III established the other
two Supreme Courts in Bombay and Madras.

However, soon after the enactment of the Indian High Court Act, 1861, the Supreme Courts in Calcutta, Bombay,
and Madras were consequently abolished and the courts in Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras resumed its functioning
as High Court. In 1935, the British Parliament enacted the Government of India Act, 1935, after a resolution was
passed by the Joint Select Committee, which was headed by Lord Linlithgow.

The Government of India Act, 1935, led to the establishment of the Federal Court in India, which has vested more
judicial power than the High court with original, appellate, and advisory jurisdiction. After independence, the
Constitution of India was adopted on 26th January 1950, and the Federal Court of India resumed functioning as
the Supreme Court of India on 28th January 1950, which was presided by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Harilal Jekisundas
Kania

As per article 124(1) of the Constitution, there should be a Supreme Court in India that will be presided by the
Chief Justice of India with additional seven Judges until the parliament passes precedent for increasing the number
of Judges. However, currently, there are 34 judges in the Supreme Court, and the current Chief Justice of India is
Mr. Justice Sharad Arvind Bodbe.

8|Pag e
 History About Supreme Court Of India

The Supreme Court of India is the apex judicial body under the Constitution of India. Article 124 of the
Constitution states that “There shall be a Supreme Court of India.” The Supreme Court came into existence on 26
January 1950 with the coming into force of the Constitution. The Supreme Court initially functioned from the old
Parliament House till it moved to the present building located on Tilak Marg, New Delhi in 1958.
On 28 January 1950, two days after India became a Sovereign Democratic Republic, the Supreme Court was
inaugurated. The inauguration took place in the Chamber of Princes in the old Parliament building where the
Federal Court of India sat for 12 years from 1937 to 1950.
The inaugural proceedings began at 9:45 am. It was attended by the first Chief Justice of India, Harilal J. Kania
and Judges of the Federal Court – Justices Saiyid Fazl Ali, M. Patanjali Sastri, Mehr Chand Mahajan, Bijan Kumar
Mukherjea and S.R. Das, the Chief Justices of the High Courts of Allahabad, Bombay, Madras, Orissa, Assam,
Nagpur, Punjab, Saurashtra, Patiala and the East Punjab States Union, Mysore, Hyderabad, Madhya Bharat and
Travancore-Cochin.
The proceedings were also graced by the Prime Minister of India, ambassadors and diplomatic representatives of
foreign States, the Attorney General of India M.C. Setalvad, the Advocate Generals of Bombay, Madras, Uttar
Pradesh, Bihar, East Punjab, Orissa, Mysore, Hyderabad, and Madhya Bharat and a large number of advocates.
To ensure that the Rules of the Supreme Court were published and the names of all the Advocates and agents of
the Federal Court were brought on the rolls of the Supreme Court, the inaugural proceedings were put as part of
the record of the Supreme Court.
After its inauguration on 28 January 1950, the Supreme Court commenced its sittings in a part of the old
Parliament House. The Court moved into a new building in 1958. The first President of India Dr. Rajendra Prasad
inaugurated the present building of the Supreme Court of India on 4 August 1958. The building is shaped to
project the image of scales of justice. It has a 27.6 metre high dome and a spacious colonnaded verandah. The
Central Wing of the building is the centre beam of the scales. The Chief Justice’s Court is the largest of the courts
located in the centre of the Central Wing. There is a life size figure of Mahatma Gandhi, the apostle of truth and
non-violence in the courtyard opposite the Chief Justice’s Court. The statue was unveiled by the 26th Chief Justice
of India, Justice A.M. Ahmadi on 1 August 1996. There is also a 7-foot tall statue of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar which
was unveiled by Hon’ble President of India, Smt. Droupadi Murmu in the presence of the 50th Chief Justice of
India, Dr. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud on 26 November 2023. The statue honours the architect of the Constitution
and captures him in a lawyer’s gown, holding a copy of the Constitution in his hand. To visit the building, one
may book a guided tour from the Supreme Court website or obtain the visitor’s pass from the SuSwagatam portal
or the front desk of the Supreme Court.
Three extensions were made to the original building- for the first time in 1979, then in 1994, and again in 2015.
In 1979, two New Wings – the East Wing and the West Wing were added to the complex. There are 19 courtrooms
in the various wings of the building. In 1994, the second extension of the building was made which connected the
East and the West Wings.The third extension – the New Extension Block near the Supreme Court Museum was
inaugurated by the then Chief Justice of India, Justice H.L. Dattu on 4 November 2015 and some of the Sections
from the existing building were shifted to the new building. On 17 July 2019, Hon’ble President of India, Shri
Ram Nath Kovind inaugurated the Additional Building Complex of the Supreme Court of India. The additional
complex, with a total built up area of 1,80,700 sq. mts. has five functional blocks and one service block. The
9|Pag e
curvature of the building rises from the ground level in the colour scheme and sandstone external cladding,
drawing inspiration from the original architecture of the Supreme Court. The Additional Building Complex also
houses the New Judges’ Library.
The original Constitution of 1950 envisaged a Supreme Court with a Chief Justice and 7 puisne Judges – leaving
it to Parliament to increase this number. In the early years, all the Judges of the Supreme Court sat together (en
banc) to hear the cases presented before them. Considering the increase in workload, Parliament increased the
number of Judges from 8 in 1950 to 11 in 1956, 14 in 1960, 18 in 1978, 26 in 1986, 31 in 2009 and 34 in 2019
(current strength). Today, the Judges sit in Benches of two and three and come together in larger Benches of 5 and
more (Constitution Bench) to decide any conflicting decisions between benches of the Supreme Court or any
substantial questions concerning the interpretation of the Constitution.
The proceedings of the Supreme Court are conducted in English. The practice and procedure of working of the
Registry on the judicial side is regulated by the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 and Handbook on Practice and
Procedure and Office Procedure. The Supreme Court Officers and Servants (Conditions of Service and Conduct)
Rules, 1961 contains the rules with respect to the conditions of service and conduct of the staff attached to the
Supreme Court of India.

10 | P a g e
 Activities About Court Visit

Kingston Law college has Organized Delhi Supreme Court visit during 4th December to 12th December 2023 to
Delhi. We have visited India Gate, Supreme Court of India, Bar Council of India ,The Indian Law Institute, Qutub
Minar, Rajghat ,Humayun tomb ,The Indian society of International Law and Janpath Market we have to total 43
student and 4 faculties.
The students of Kingston Law College had the golden opportunity to visit the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
The students were informed about the symbolic value of the structures which surround the Hon’ble Supreme
Court and the significance of the symmetry.
On 4th December 2023 we left Howrah by Durant Express Train at 8:35 minutes to go to New Delhi 5 th
morning we all reached New Delhi. Then we took a bus we reached Hotel Mahajan Palace then we went to the
room and took some rest in the evening we all went to visit India Gate.

On 6th December First we visited the Supreme Court of India and then we went around the India Gate we had to
make a pass to enter the Supreme Court and when we entered the Supreme Court I had a different kind of joy
that day I will never forget, visiting the room. Room number was 13 and we were given 10 minutes in that 10
minutes I didn't understand anything but that much I understood that the hearing of 40/102 case was going on
there then we went around the Supreme Court and took pictures and there was a very beautiful flower garden in
front of the Supreme Court. In that room There were two Judges and 40 advocates.
On 7th December We visited the Indian Law Institute and Bar Council of India where we had a short
introduction.
The Bar Council of India is a statutory body created by Parliament to regulate and represent the Indian Bar. We
perform the regulatory function by prescribing standards of professional conduct and etiquettes and by
exercising disciplinary jurisdiction over the Bar. We also set standards for legal education and grant recognition
to Universities whose degree in law will serve as qualification for enrolment as an advocate.
In addition, we perform certain representative functions by protecting the rights, privileges and interests of
advocates and through the creation of funds for providing financial assistance to organise welfare schemes for
them.
The Bar Council of India was established by the Parliament under the Advocates Act, 1961. The following
statutory functions under Section 7 cover the Bar Council’s regulatory and representative mandate for the legal
profession and legal education in India.
On 8th December We all to Qutub Minar, Humayun Tom tour we all enjoyed a lot.
On 9th and 10th December Two - day's Seminar on the Human Rights Day Celebration of the Indian Society of
International Law and on that day we interacted with many Supreme Court advocates and some resource
persons. And on the evening of 10th we all went shopping at Janpat market.
On 11th December we boarded the Durant Express train at 7:45 pm and on the 12th alighted at Sealda station
and everyone went home.
11 | P a g e
 CASE BREAFINGS

Case1: Gurshinder Singh vs Sriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. on 24 January, 2020

Equivalent citations: AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 1395, AIRONLINE 2020 SC 80, (2020) 1
RECCIVR 980, (2020) 1 KER LT 494, (2020) 2 SCALE 473

FACT

The bench of Sanjiv Khanna and Bela M. Trivedi, JJ has held that an Insurance Company cannot repudiate a claim
merely on the ground that there was a delay in intimating it about the occurrence of the theft of vehicle.

The Court was deciding a case relating to theft of a Truck that was insured with Oriental Insurance Company
Limited. During the pendency of the complaint before the District Forum, the Insurance Company repudiated the
claim of the complainant vide its letter dated 19.10.2010, stating that there was a breach of a condition of the
policy which mandated immediate notice to the insurer of the accidental loss/damage, and that the complainant
had intimated about the loss on 11.04.2008 i.e. after the lapse of more than five months and, therefore, the
Insurance Company had disowned their liability on the claim of the complainant. While the District forum allowed
the Complaint, the NCDRC reversed the said finding.

ISSUE

In the case at hand, the FIR was lodged immediately on the next day of the occurrence of theft of the vehicle by
the complainant. The accused were also arrested and chargesheeted, however, the vehicle could not be traced out.

“Of course, it is true that there was a delay of about five months on the part of the complainant in informing and
lodging its claim before the Insurance Company, nonetheless, it is pertinent to note that the Insurance Company
has not repudiated the claim on the ground that it was not genuine. It has repudiated only on the ground of delay.”

12 | P a g e
The Court, hence, concluded that when the complainant had lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of the
vehicle, and when the police after the investigation had arrested the accused and also filed challan before the
concerned Court, and when the claim of the insured was not found to be not genuine, the Insurance Company
could not have repudiated the claim merely on the ground that there was a delay in intimating the Insurance
Company about the occurrence of the theft.

The Court, hence, set aside the order of NCDRC

JUDGEMENT

B.R. GAVAI, J.

Leave granted.

2. Noticing that there is a conflict between the decisions of the Bench of the two Judges of this Court in Om
Prakash vs. Reliance General Insurance & Anr. 1 and in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Parvesh
Chander Chadha2, on the question, as to whether delay in informing the occurrence of the theft of the vehicle to
the 2 insurance company, though the FIR was registered immediately, would disentitle the claimant of the
insurance claim. The Bench of two Judges of this Court vide Order dated 09.01.2018 has referred the matter to a
three Judge Bench.

3. The appellant had got his tractor insured with the respondent(s) on 19.06.2010. On 28.10.2010, the tractor was
stolen and an FIR was lodged on the same day. However, the claim was submitted to the respondent(s) on
15.12.2010. It was rejected on the ground that intimation was given belatedly after 52 days. The appellant herein,
therefore, approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jalandhar, Punjab, (hereinafter referred
to as the “District Forum”) vide Complaint No. 380 of 2011. The District Forum, relying on the decisions of the
National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (hereinafter referred to as the ‘National Commission’) in the
case of Parvesh Chander Chadha (supra) and T.D.P. Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti Ltd. & Ors. vs. Charanjit Kaur
and Ors. 3., allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to pay a sum of Rs.4,70,000/• being the declared
insured value of the vehicle to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of copy of the order,
failing which, the respondents were made liable to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of
order till payment.

4. Being aggrieved thereby, the respondents preferred an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”). The State Commission dismissed the
appeal vide order dated 26.03.2013.

13 | P a g e
5. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the appeal by the State Commission, the respondents preferred a Revision
Petition before the National Commission. The National Commission relying on its earlier judgment in the case of
New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Trilochan Jane 4 allowed the revision petition thereby setting aside the orders
of the District Forum as well as the State Commission and dismissed the complaint. Being aggrieved thereby, the
appellant is before this Court.

6. When the matter was heard by the two•Judge bench of this Court, it noticed that though in the case of Om
Prakash (supra), the theft of the vehicle was reported to the police on the day after the theft occurred, the intimation
was sent to the insurance company much later. This Court took the view that delay in informing the insurance
company would not debar the insured to get the insurance claim. Per contra, it noticed that in the case of Parvesh
Chander Chadha (supra), this Court accepted the contention of the insurance company that on account of delay in
intimating the insurance company about the theft, though the FIR was lodged immediately, the insurance company
was entitled to repudiate the claim of the claimant. Hence, the present appeal.

7. It will be relevant to refer to Condition No.1 of the Standard Form for Commercial Vehicles Package Policy,
which reads as follows: “1. Notice shall be given in writing to the Company immediately upon the occurrence of
any accidental loss or damage and in the event of any claim and thereafter the insured shall give all such
information and assistance as the Company shall require. Every letter claim writ summons and/or process or copy
thereof shall be forwarded to the Company immediately on receipt by the insured. Notice shall also be given in
writing to the company immediately the insured shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution inquest or
fatal inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy. In case of theft or
criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under this policy the insured shall give immediate notice to the
police and co•operate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender.”

8. The condition which falls for consideration in the present case is identical with the condition that fell for
consideration in both the cases, namely, Om Prakash (supra) and Parvesh Chander Chadha (supra). In the case of
Parvesh Chander Chadha (supra), the vehicle was stolen between 18.01.1995 and 20.01.1995. The FIR for the
alleged theft of car was registered on 20.01.1995. However, the intimation was given to the insurer on 22.05.1995.

On account of the delay, the claim for compensation was repudiated by the insurance company for breach of
policy. In the said case, the District Forum had allowed the complaint of the claimant, which order was maintained
by the State Commission as well as the National Commission. However, reversing the concurrent orders, this
Court held that though the theft had occurred between 18.01.1995 and 20.01.1995, the intimation to the insurance
company was given only on 22.05.1995. It observed that no explanation for such an unusual delay in informing
the insurer was given by the claimant. This Court found that in terms of the policy issued by the insurer (appellant
therein), the respondent was duty bound to inform it about the theft of the vehicle immediately after the incident.

14 | P a g e
It further observed, that on account of delay in intimation, the insurer was deprived of its legitimate right to get
an inquiry conducted into the alleged theft of the vehicle and make an endeavour to recover the same.

9. Per contra, in the case of Om Prakash (supra), the vehicle was stolen on 23.03.2010 at around 9.00 p.m. The
claimant lodged an FIR immediately on 24.03.2010. He lodged the insurance claim on 31.03.2010. Since the
claim of the claimant was repudiated, he filed complaint before the District Forum which was allowed. The State
Commission also maintained the order of the District Forum. However, in the revision, the National Commission
reversed the same. In an appeal, this Court found that the claimant (the appellant therein) had assigned cogent
reasons for the delay of 8 days in lodging the complaint. It further found that the word “immediately”’ cannot be
construed narrowly so as to deprive claimant the benefit of the settlement of genuine claim, particularly when the
delay was explained. It further held, that rejection of the claim on purely technical grounds and in a mechanical
manner will result in loss of confidence of policy holders in the insurance industry. It further held, that if the
reasons for delay in making a claim is satisfactorily explained, such a claim cannot be rejected on the ground of
delay. This Court also held that it would not be fair and reasonable to reject the genuine claims which have already
been verified and found to be correct by the investigator. It further held, that the condition regarding the delay
shall not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claims which have been otherwise proved to be genuine. This
Court observed that the Consumer Protection Act aims at providing better protection of the interest of the
consumers. It is a beneficial legislation that deserves a liberal construction

10. We are of the view that much would depend upon the words ‘co-operate’ and ‘immediate’, in condition No. 1
of the Standard Form for Commercial Vehicles Package Policy. Before we analyze this case any further, we need
to observe the rules of interpretation applicable to a contract of insurance. Generally, an insurance contract is
governed by the rules of interpretation applicable to the general contracts.

However, due to the specialized nature of contract of insurance, certain rules are tailored to suit insurance
contracts. Under the English law, the development of insurance jurisprudence is given credence to Lord Mansfield,
who developed the law from its infancy. Without going much into the development of the interpretation rules, we
may allude to Justice Neuberger in Arnold v. Britton5, which is simplified as under:

(1) reliance placed in some cases on commercial common sense and surrounding circumstances was not to be
invoked to undervalue the importance of the language of the provision which is to be construed.

(2) the less clear the words used were, the more ready the court could properly be to depart from their natural
meaning, but that did not justify departing from the natural meaning

15 | P a g e
(3) commercial common sense was not to be invoked retrospectively, so that the mere fact that a contractual
arrangement has worked out badly, or even disastrously, for one of the parties was not a reason for departing from
the natural language.

(4) a court should be very slow to reject the natural meaning of a provision as correct simply because it appeared
to be a very imprudent term for one of the parties to have agreed.

(5) when interpreting a contractual provision, the court could only take into account facts or circumstances which
existed at the time that the contract was made and which were known or reasonably available to both parties.

(6) if an event subsequently occurred which was plainly not intended or contemplated by the parties, if it was
clear what the parties would have intended, the court would give effect to that intention.

11. A perusal of the aforesaid shows that this contract is to be interpreted according to the context involved in the
contract. The contract we are interpreting is a Commercial Vehicle Package Policy. There is no gainsaying that in
a contract, the bargaining power is usually at equal footing. In this regard, the joint intention of the parties is taken
into consideration for interpretation of a contract. However, in most standard form contracts, that is not so. In this
regard, the Court in such circumstances consider the application of the rule of contra preferatum, when ambiguity
exists and an interpretation of the contract is preferred which favors the party with lesser bargaining power.

12. It is argued on behalf of the respondents and rightly so, that the insurance policy is a contract between the
insurer and the insured and the parties would be strictly bound by the terms and conditions as provided in the
contract between the parties.

13. In our view, applying the aforesaid principles, Condition No. 1 of the Standard Form for Commercial Vehicles
Package Policy will have to be divided into two parts. The perusal of the first part of Condition No. 1 would
reveal, that it provides that ‘a notice shall be given in writing to the company immediately upon the occurrence
of any accidental loss or damage’. It further provides, that in the event of any claim and thereafter, the insured
shall give all such information and assistance as the company shall require. It provides, that every letter claim writ
summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the insurance company immediately on receipt by
the insured. It further provides, that a notice shall also be given in writing to the company immediately by the
insured if he shall have knowledge of any impending prosecution inquest or fatal inquiry in respect of any
occurrence, which may give rise to a claim under this policy.

14. A perusal of the wordings used in this part would reveal, that all the things which are required to be done
under this part are related to an occurrence of an accident. On occurrence of an accidental loss, the insured is
required to immediately give a notice in writing to the company. This appears to be so that the company can assign
a surveyor so as to assess the damages suffered by the insured/vehicle. It further provides, that any letter claim

16 | P a g e
writ summons and/or process or copy thereof shall be forwarded to the company immediately on receipt by the
insured. As such, the intention would be clear. The question of receipt of letter claim writ summons and/or process
or copy thereof by the insured, would only arise in the event of the criminal proceedings being initiated with
regard to the occurrence of the accident. It further provides, that the insured shall also give a notice in writing to
the company immediately if the insured shall have the knowledge of any impending prosecution inquest or fatal
inquiry in respect of any occurrence which may give rise to a claim under this policy. It will again make the
intention clear that the immediate action is contemplated in respect of an accident occurring to the vehicle.

15. We find, that the second part of Condition No. 1 deals with the ‘theft or criminal act other than the accident’.
It provides, that in case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under the policy, the insured
shall give immediate notice to the police and co-operate with the company in securing the conviction of the
offender. The object behind giving immediate notice to the police appears to be that if the police is immediately
informed about the theft or any criminal act, the police machinery can be set in motion and steps for recovery of
the vehicle could be expedited. In a case of theft, the insurance company or a surveyor would have a limited role.
It is the police, who acting on the FIR of the insured, will be required to take immediate steps for tracing and
recovering the vehicle. Per contra, the surveyor of the insurance company, at the most, could ascertain the factum
regarding the theft of the vehicle.

16. It is further to be noted that, in the event, after the registration of an FIR, the police successfully recovering
the vehicle and returning the same to the insured, there would be no occasion to lodge a claim for compensation
on account of the policy. It is only when the police are not in a position to trace and recover the vehicle and the
final report is lodged by the police after the vehicle is not traced, the insured would be in a position to lodge his
claim for compensation. As observed by the bench of two learned Judges in the case of Om Prakash (supra), after
the vehicle is stolen, a person, who lost his vehicle, would immediately lodge an FIR and the immediate conduct
that would be expected of such a person would be to assist the police in search of the vehicle. The registration of
the FIR regarding the theft of the vehicle and the final report of the police after the vehicle is not traced would
substantiate the claim of the claimant that the vehicle is stolen. Not only that, but the surveyors appointed by the
insurance company are also required to enquire whether the claim of the claimant regarding the theft is genuine
or not. If the surveyor appointed by the insurance company, upon inquiry, finds that the claim of theft is genuine
then coupled with the immediate registration of the FIR, in our view, would be conclusive proof of the vehicle
being stolen.

17. That the term ‘co-operate’ as used under the contract needs to be assessed in facts and circumstances. While
assessing the ‘duty to co-operate’ for the insured, inter alia the Court should have regards to those breaches by the
insured which are prejudicial to the insurance company. Usually, mere delay in informing the theft to the insurer,

17 | P a g e
when the same was already informed to the law enforcement authorities, cannot amount to a breach of ‘duty to
co-operate’ of the insured.

18. We concur with the view taken in the case of Om Prakash (supra), that in such a situation if the claimant is
denied the claim merely on the ground that there is some delay in intimating the insurance company about the
occurrence of the theft, it would be taking a hyper technical view. We find, that this Court in Om Prakash (supra)
has rightly held that it would not be fair and reasonable to reject genuine claims which had already been verified
and found to be correct by the investigator.

19. We find, that this Court in Om Prakash (supra) has rightly held that the Consumer Protection Act aims at
protecting the interest of the consumers and it being a beneficial legislation deserves pragmatic construction. We
find, that in Om Prakash (supra) this Court has rightly held that mere delay in intimating the insurance company
about the theft of the vehicle should not be a shelter to repudiate the insurance claim which has been otherwise
proved to be genuine.

20. We, therefore, hold that when an insured has lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of a vehicle occurred
and when the police after investigation have lodged a final report after the vehicle was not traced and when the
surveyors/investigators appointed by the insurance company have found the claim of the theft to be genuine, then
mere delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft cannot be a ground to deny the
claim of the insured.

21. We, therefore, answer the reference accordingly.

22. In the present case, the facts are undisputed. The theft had occurred on 28.10.2010. The FIR was lodged at
P.S. Nakodar, Jalandhar, Punjab on the same day i.e. 28.10.2010. The police have admittedly lodged the final
report. The investigators appointed by the insurance company have submitted their investigation report on
25.02.2011, finding the claim of the appellant to be genuine. In this background, the National Commission was
not justified in reversing the concurrent orders ofthe District Forum and the State Commission. The appeal is,
therefore, allowed. The impugned Judgment and order dated 17.03.2015 passed by the National Commission is
quashed and set aside. The order of the District Forum dated 09.05.2012 as maintained by the State Commission
vide order dated 26.03.2013 is maintained.

23. The amount, i.e., 75% of the claim amount deposited by the respondents, pursuant to the orders of this Court
dated 09.01.2018, in this Registry shall be permitted to be withdrawn by the appellant herein along with interest
accrued thereon. The remainder shall be paid by the respondents within a period of six weeks from today along
with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the entire amount of Rs.4,70,000/• from the date of the order of the
District Forum till its realisation.

18 | P a g e
 …………...................J.

[N.V. RAMANA]

…………....................J.

[R. SUBHASH REDDY]

NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 24, 2020

................................J.

[B.R. GAVAI]

Some of my observations are as follows:

 On occurrence of an accidental loss, the insured is required to immediately give a notice in writing to the
company. This appears to be so that the company can assign a surveyor so as to assess the damages suffered
by the insured/vehicle.
 In case of theft or criminal act which may be the subject of a claim under the policy, the insured shall give
immediate notice to the police and cooperate with the company in securing the conviction of the offender.
The object behind giving immediate notice to the police appears to be that if the police is immediately
informed about the theft or any criminal act, the police machinery can be set in motion and steps for
recovery of the vehicle could be expedited. In a case of theft, the insurance company or a surveyor would
have a limited role. It is the police, who acting on the FIR of the insured, will be required to take immediate
steps for tracing and recovering the vehicle. Per contra, the surveyor of the insurance company, at the
most, could ascertain the factum regarding the theft of the vehicle.
 When an insured has lodged the FIR immediately after the theft of a vehicle occurred and when the police
after investigation have lodged a final report after the vehicle was not traced and when the
surveyors/investigators appointed by the insurance company have found the claim of the theft to be
genuine, then mere delay in intimating the insurance company about the occurrence of the theft cannot be
a ground to deny the claim of the insured.

19 | P a g e
Case2: Sanjeev Kapoor vs Chandana Kapoor on 19 February, 2020

Equivalent citations: AIR 2020 SUPREME COURT 1064, AIRONLINE 2020 SC 207 (2020)

The Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeev Kapoor v. Chandana Kapoor and Ors., comprising of Justice Ashok
Bhushan held that the Magistrate can cancel or alter his order under Section- 125 C.r.P.C.

FACT

The Respondent and the Appellant married each other on 04.11.1998. A son and a daughter were born to them.
The wife filed an application under Section- 125 C.r.P.C., 1973 for maintenance of minor daughter and son.

The Appellant filed a divorce petition, but the Family Court solved their issues and the Appellant was asked to
pay 25,000/- per month for the maintenance from July 2015 up to April 2017. Before 10th May of every month,
the Appellant was directed to transfer the money in the account of the Respondent and the arrears should be paid
within six months. Both parties can file a divorce petition by mutual consent and the Court dismissed the
maintenance petition in its order dated 06.05.2017.

The maintenance was only paid for four months that is 1,00,000/-.due to this the Respondent filed an application
under Section 125 C.r.P.C. The Additional Principal Judge rejected this application as the parties were supposed
to fulfill the obligations as per the earlier order.

After the Execution petition was rejected then the Respondent filed another application on the ground that the
Appellant had failed to pay the arrears and had only given 75,000/- as the maintenance amount.

ISSUE

It was argued by the Appellant had made the payment of some amount as per the order, but since the Respondent
backed off, the maintenance amount was stopped. The Appellant filed an application under Section- 482 C.r.P.C.
in the High Court as was not satisfied with the judgment of the Family Court. However, the High Court also
rejected the application which forced the Appellant to make an appeal.

The Learned Advocate, Shri Subodh Markandeya, argued that the application under Section- 125 C.r.P.C. was
decided by the District Judge of the Family Court and so the court cannot set aside the order.

20 | P a g e
Section- 362- C.r.P.C., 1973 states that the Court cannot alter any judgment, but can only rectify a clerical or
arithmetical error This means the Order dated 05.01.2019 is void in nature as per the provisions of this section.

The counsel of the Respondent agrees that the judgment of the High Court was impugned. It has been contended
by the Respondent that whether the application under 125 C.r.P.C. is contrary to the provisions of Section – 362
C.r.P.C. The Counsel is of the view that inherent powers cannot be exercised to do what the Code specifically
prohibits the Court from doing something relevant and necessary. In the case of Mostt. Simrikhia v. Smt. Dolley
Mukherjee and another, AIR 1990 SC 1605: 1990(2) R.C.R. ( Criminal ) 337, the inherent powers have the origin
in the principles that have been framed and the Court cannot evolve new provisions as it will destroy the intent of
the said provision. the basic element cannot be altered.

JUDGEMENT

The Court opined that the Justice Delivery System does not allow the Court to alter the Order of any Court. Only
the clerical mistakes can be altered. The Legislative Scheme is related to society as a whole. Section -125 C.r.P.C.
is social justice legislation that is concerned with the maintenance of wives, children, and parents.

The Judiciary is that thread that binds the people with the society and so it’s decisions shall always be for the
public good or greater good of the society. Social Context Judging is the hallmark of the justice delivery system
that will always be in accordance with the expectations. desires and interests of the society following the principles
of the Rule of Law.

The Judge has to maintain a balance for fair play in the interest of equity, good conscience.

Section 125- C.r.P.C. states that-

If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain-

(a) his wife, unable to maintain herself, or

(b) his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or

(c) his legitimate or illegitimate child ( not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child
is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or

(d) his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, the Magistrate has the power to look into such
issues and provide an adequate monthly allowance to the needy.

21 | P a g e
The Court said that it is not satisfied that the Family Court was not entitled to set aside and cancel its an order
dated 06.05.2017 in view of the arguments and facts stated by the Appellant.

The Oder of the Family Court dated 06.05.2017 states that the Respondent shall pay 25,000/- to the Appellant and
if he fails to do so the Petitioner is free to approach the Court and so the petition is disposed of.

Also, the Appellant has only paid one lakh rupees and the arrears from July 2015 to April 2017 are not paid. Thus,
the Oder passed by the Family Court reviving the maintenance application of the wife under Section- 125 C.r.P.C.,
by setting aside the order dated 06.05.2017 is not contrary to Section 482 C.r.P.C. The contention of the Appellant
that the Magistrate is prohibited to pass the order is not acceptable.

No error was committed by the High Court in rejecting the application filed under Section – 482 C.r.P.C., 1973.
The provisions under Section 482 are to be duly followed by the High Court for the principle of Justice and the
public good.

The Family Court has ensured justice for accepting the appeal under Section – 125 C.r.P.C., 1973 and it needs no
interference by the High Court under Section 482- C.r.P.C.

For the above reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

MY OBSERVATION

The Supreme Court in the case of Sanjeev Kapoor v. Chandana Kapoor and Ors., comprising of Justice Ashok
Bhushan held that the Magistrate can cancel or alter his order under Section- 125 C.r.P.C. The Apex Court in the
case of Sanjeev Kapoor Vs. Chandana Kapoor and others reported in (2020) 13 Supreme Court Cases 172 in pa24
extracting Sections 125 and 127 Cr. P.C. has held that Court after passing judgment or final order in proceedings
under Section 125 Cr. P.C. does not become functus officio.

22 | P a g e
 FINDINGS OF THE REPORT

The Supreme Court of India is the country’s highest judicial court. It is the final court of appeal in the country. It
takes up appeals against the verdicts of the High Courts, other courts and tribunals. It settles disputes between
various government authorities, between state governments, and between the centre and any state government. It
also hears matters which the President refers to it, in its advisory role. The SC can also take up cases suo moto
(on its own).The law that SC declares is binding on all the courts in India and on the Union as well as the state
governments.he Supreme Court of India is the country’s highest judicial court. It is the final court of appeal in the
country.

23 | P a g e
 CONCLUSION

To conclude, the Supreme Court is the highest judicial authority in India with a very wide jurisdiction and duty to
protect the fundamental rights of every individual. It ensures the uniform interpretation of laws, safeguards
individual rights, resolves disputes, and upholds the integrity of the judiciary. Indian people have great
expectations from the judiciary as it is granted freedom to perform fearlessly. At times, the judiciary has been
quintessential in the interpretation of the Constitution. The laws formed by the top court are binding on the lower
courts that prevent differences of opinion amongst judgments of various courts.1

 1
The Supreme Court of India- https://www.icaindia.co.in/
 Bar and Bench- https://www.barandbench.com/
 Live Law- https://www.livelaw.in/

24 | P a g e
 FOOTNOTE

 The Supreme Court of India- https://www.icaindia.co.in/

 Bar and Bench- https://www.barandbench.com/
 Live Law- https://www.livelaw.in/

25 | P a g e
26 | P a g e