1960 (5) TMI 25 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether an insurer will also include a person who was an insurer but has closed his business? Whether the insurer admits them or not and whether a decree has been finally passed in respect of them or not? Whether the Company is entitled to take into account the security deposit under s. 7 in order to show that the liabilities have been otherwise provided for? Held that - Appeal dismissed. When s. 2D speaks of satisfaction or provision otherwise for the liabilities of insurance business which is closed it contemplates such satisfaction or provision otherwise over and above the deposit made under s. 7. It is not in dispute in this case that there are some liabilities still pending; it is also not in dispute that they are not satisfied and no provision has been made otherwise for them irrespective of the security deposit. This also appears to have been the position when the order was made in July 1957. In the circumstances the order is good and cannot be called in question by the Company.

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of the Central Government to order an investigation under Section 33 of the Insurance Act, 1938, when the insurer has ceased its insurance business.
2. Interpretation of the term "insurer" under Sections 2(9) and 2D of the Insurance Act, 1938.
3. Whether the liabilities of the insurer have been satisfied or otherwise provided for.
4. Validity of the investigation order based on the Central Government's prima facie satisfaction regarding unsatisfied liabilities.
5. Whether the security deposit under Section 7 of the Insurance Act can be considered as "provision otherwise" for liabilities under Section 2D.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction of the Central Government to Order Investigation:
The appellant contended that since it had ceased its insurance business, the Central Government could not order an investigation under Section 33 of the Insurance Act, 1938. The court held that the term "insurer" in Section 33 includes not only those currently carrying on insurance business but also those who have ceased such business. This interpretation aligns with the Act's purpose to protect policyholders and the general public. Therefore, the Central Government retains jurisdiction to order an investigation even if the insurer has closed its business.

2. Interpretation of "Insurer":
The court examined the definition of "insurer" under Section 2(9) and noted that statutory definitions must be read in context. The term "insurer" can refer to a person or entity that was carrying on insurance business but has ceased to do so. The court highlighted that various sections of the Act, such as Sections 3(2), 9, and 55, use "insurer" in contexts that include intending insurers and those who have ceased business. Therefore, the term "insurer" in Sections 33 and 2D includes entities that have closed their insurance business.

3. Satisfaction of Liabilities:
The appellant argued that the investigation order should show on its face that the Central Government was satisfied that liabilities remained unsatisfied or not otherwise provided for. The court held that while the order should ideally reflect this prima facie satisfaction, its absence does not invalidate the order if subsequent proceedings show that there were materials justifying the Central Government's conclusion. In this case, complaints and pending claims indicated that liabilities were indeed unsatisfied.

4. Validity of Investigation Order:
The court emphasized that the Central Government must be prima facie satisfied that liabilities remain unsatisfied or not otherwise provided for before ordering an investigation under Section 33 read with Section 2D. This prima facie satisfaction can be based on complaints and inquiries. The court found that the Central Government had sufficient material, including pending claims, to justify the investigation order.

5. Security Deposit as "Provision Otherwise":
The appellant claimed that the security deposit under Section 7 should be considered as "provision otherwise" for liabilities under Section 2D. The court disagreed, stating that the deposit under Section 7 is intended to protect policyholders and cannot be easily accessed to satisfy claims. The deposit is not available for third-party claims and can only be used by policyholders as a last resort. Therefore, "provision otherwise" must be over and above the security deposit. The court concluded that the liabilities were not otherwise provided for, validating the investigation order.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the court upheld the Central Government's authority to order an investigation under Section 33 of the Insurance Act, 1938, even if the insurer had ceased its business. The court clarified the interpretation of "insurer" and emphasized the need for prima facie satisfaction regarding unsatisfied liabilities. The security deposit under Section 7 cannot be considered as "provision otherwise" for liabilities under Section 2D.

← Previous Next →