In legal terms, a contract of indemnity is a promise by one party to protect another from potential losses. This concept becomes relevant when we look at insurance contracts, which are meant to provide financial protection against uncertain events. But the question arises: are all insurance contracts, contract of indemnity under Indian law? To understand this, we must examine the meaning, similarities, and differences between both types of contracts, and also analyze how the Indian Contract Act treats them.
Understanding the Concepts
A contract of insurance refers to an agreement where one party (the insured) pays a premium to another (the insurer), who in return promises to compensate for losses resulting from certain uncertain future events like fire, theft, etc.
A contract of indemnity, on the other hand, is defined under Section 124 of the Indian Contract Act as a contract in which one party agrees to save the other from loss caused by the conduct of the promisor or any other person.
You can also read the blog of What is Sufficient Cause under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963
For more information, visit [Aashayein Enquiry Section]
Similarities Between the Two
Both contracts are contingent in nature, meaning they depend on the occurrence or non-occurrence of a future event. They are special types of contracts that include consideration (something of value exchanged) and involve promises from one party to another.
Key Differences
While they seem similar, there are key differences. A contract of indemnity is broader in one sense, but in another sense, not all insurance contracts fall within its legal definition. For example, life insurance is not considered a contract of indemnity because the loss of life cannot be measured in monetary terms in the same way as damage to property.
In insurance contracts, a premium is paid regularly, whereas in an indemnity contract, no such premium is required. Also, insurance contracts involve the principle of uberrimae fidei, or utmost good faith, requiring full disclosure of all material facts. This principle is not a requirement in standard indemnity contracts.
Legal Position in India
Indian law under Section 124 recognizes only those indemnity contracts where the loss is caused by the actions of a person (either the promisor or someone else). It does not include losses from natural causes or accidents not caused by a person. Because of this, insurance contracts—especially those like fire insurance do not fall strictly under Section 124, since the cause of loss may not always involve human conduct.
In United India Insurance Co. v. M/s. Aman Singh Munshilal, the court held the insurer liable for fire damage to goods during transit, showing that insurance contracts are valid under Indian law, even if they don’t fall within the strict definition of indemnity under Section 124.
In Gajanan Moreshwar v. Moreshwar Madan, the court clarified that Section 124 does not cover all types of indemnity and is not exhaustive. Similarly, in New India Assurance Co. v. Kusumanchi Kameshwra Rao, the court held that indemnity contracts refer to direct agreements to compensate for loss caused by a person, not natural events or accidents.
Conclusion
While insurance contracts and indemnity contracts share some common features, they are not the same. In Indian law, not all insurance contracts can be treated as indemnity contracts under Section 124, particularly when the loss isn’t caused by human conduct. However, these contracts are still valid as contingent contracts under Section 31 of the Indian Contract Act. The Indian courts have also clarified that the law of indemnity is not limited to the strict wording of Sections 124 and 125, and equitable principles—similar to those followed in English law—can also be applied. Therefore, while insurance contracts may not fit neatly into the definition of indemnity under Indian law, they still hold strong legal ground and are enforceable.
