Contract of Indemnity

[Alok Rudra]

The term Indemnity literally means “Security against loss”. In a contract of indemnity one party – i.e. the indemnifier promise to compensate the other party i.e. the indemnified against the loss suffered by the other.

The English law definition of a contract of indemnity is – “it is a promise to save a person harmless from the consequences of an act”. Thus it includes within its ambit losses caused not merely by human agency but also those caused by accident or fire or other natural calamities

The definition of a contract of indemnity as laid down in Section 124 – “A contract by which one party promises to save the other from loss caused to him by the conduct of the promisor himself, or by the conduct of any other person, is called a contract of indemnity.

The definition provided by the Indian Contract Act confines itself to the losses occasioned due to the act of the promisor or due to the act of any other person.

Under a contract of indemnity, liability of the promisor arises from loss caused to the promisee by the conduct of the promisor himself or by the conduct of other person. [Punjab National Bank v Vikram Cotton Mills].

Every contract of insurance, other than life insurance, is a contract of indemnity. The definition is restricted to cases where loss has been caused by some human agency. [Gajanan Moreshwar v Moreshwar Madan]

Section 124 deals with one particular kind of indemnity which arises from a promise made by an indemnifier to save the indemnified from the loss caused to him by the conduct of the indemnifier himself or by the conduct of any other person, but does not deal with those classes of cases where the indemnity arises from loss caused by events or accidents which do not depend upon the conduct of indemnifier or any other person. [Moreshwar v Moreshwar]

Nature of Contract of Indemnity –

A contract of indemnity may be express or implied depending upon the circumstances of the case, though Section 124 of the Indian Contract Act does not seem to cover the case of implied indemnity.

A broker in possession of a government promissory note endorsed it to a bank with forged endorsement. The bank acting in good faith applied for and got a renewed promissory note from the Public Debt Office. Meanwhile the true owner sued the Secretary of State for conversion who in turn sued the bank on an implied indemnity. It was held that – it is general principle of law when an act is done by one person at the request of another which act is not in itself manifestly tortious to the knowledge of the person doing it, and such act turns to be injurious to the rights of a third person, the person doing it is entitled to an indemnity from him who requested that it should be done. [Secretary of State v Bank of India]

The Indian Contract Act also deals with special cases of implied indemnity –

1.       U/s 69 if a person who is interested in payment of money which another is bound by law to pay and therefore pays it, he is entitled to be indemnified. For instance – if a tenant pays certain electricity bill to be paid by the owner, he is entitled to be indemnified by the owner.

2.       Section 145 provides for right of a surety to claim indemnity from the principal debtor for all sums which he has rightfully paid towards the guarantee.

3.       Section 222 provides for liability of the principal to indemnify the agent in respect of all amounts paid by him during the lawful exercise of his authority.

The plaintiff, an auctioneer, acting on the instruction of the defendant sold certain cattle which subsequently turned out to belong to someone else other than the defendant. When the true owner sued the auctioneer for conversion, the auctioneer in turn sued the defendant for indemnity. The Court held that the plaintiff having acted on the request of the defendant was entitled to assume that, if it would turned out to be wrongful, he would be indemnified by the defendant.[Adamson v Jarvis].

Validity of Indemnity Agreement

A contract of indemnity is one of the species of contracts. The principles applicable to contracts in general are also applicable to such contracts so much so that the rules such as free consent, legality of object, etc., are equally applicable.

Where the consent to an agreement is caused by coercion, fraud, misrepresentation, the agreement is voidable  at the option of the party whose consent was so caused. As per the requirement of the Contract Act, the object of the agreement must be lawful. An agreement, the object of which is opposed to the law or against the public policy, is either unlawful or void depending upon the provision of the law to which it is subject.

Contract of indemnity when enforceable –

The question whether the liability of indemnifier commences only when the indemnified has actually suffered loss or when there is an apprehension that the indemnified by all chances is likely to suffer it.

The former view was held in cases like – Shankar Nimbaji v Laxman Sapdu / Chand Bibi v Santosh Kumar Pal.

The plaintiff filed a suit to recover Rs. 5,000/- and interest from defendant by the sale of a mortgaged property and, in case of deficit, for a decree against the estate of defendant 2 which was in the hands of his sons, the defendant 2 died during the pendency of the suit. It was held that plaintiff cannot sue the defendant in anticipation that the proceeds realized by the sale of the mortgaged property would be insufficient and there would be some deficit. [Shankar Nimbaji v Laxman Sapdu]

The defendant’s father while purchasing certain property covenanted to pay off mortgage debt incurred by the plaintiff and also promised to indemnify him if they were made liable for the mortgage debt. The defendant’s father failed to pay off the mortgage debt and plaintiff filed an action to enforce the covenant. It was held as the plaintiff had not yet suffered any damage, the suit was premature so far as the cause of action on indemnity was concerned. [Chand Bibi v Santosh Kumar Pal]

A different point of view was held by the Courts in the following cases –

Plaintiff company agreed to act as commission agent for the defendant firm for purchase and sale of “Hessian” and “Gunnies” and charge commission on all such purchases and the defendant firm agreed  to indemnify the plaintiff against all losses in respect of such transactions. The plaintiff company purchased certain Hessian from one Maliram Ramjidas. The defendant firm failed to pay for or take delivery of the Hessian. Then Maliram Ramjidas resoled it at lesser price and claimed the difference as damages from the plaintiff company. The plaintiff company went into liquidation and the liquidator filed a suit to recover the amount claimed by Maliram from the defendant firm under the indemnity. The defendant argued that in as much as the plaintiff had not yet paid any amount to Maliram in respect of their liability they were not entitled to maintain the suit under indemnity. It was held negative and decided in plaintiff’s favour with a direction that the amount when recovered from the defendant firm should be paid to Maliram Ramjidas. [Osmal Jamal & Sons Ltd. v Gopal Purushotham]

After the landmark deicision in the case of Gajanan Moreshwar v Moreshwar Madan Mantri it has been well established that the liability of the indemnifier commences as soon as the loss of the indemnified becomes absolute, certain or imminent. It is not necessary that the promisee should pay for the loss.

Right of the indemnity holder – (Section 125)

An indemnity holder (i.e. indemnified) acting within the scope of his authority is entitled to the following rights –

1.       Right to recover damages – he is entitled to recover all damages which he might have been compelled to pay in any suit in respect of any matter covered by the contract.

2.       Right to recover costs – He is entitled to recover all costs incidental to the institution and defending of the suit.

3.      Right to recover sums paid under compromise – he is entitled to recover all amounts which he had paid under the terms of the compromise of such suit. However, the    compensation must not be against the directions of the indemnifier. It must be prudent and authorized by the indemnifier.

4.      Right to sue for specific performance – he is entitled to sue for specific performance if he has incurred absolute liability and the contract covers such liability.

It is important to note here that the right to indemnity cannot be claimed of dishonesty, lack of good faith and contravention of the promisor’s request. However, the right cannot be negatived in case of oversight. [Yeung v HSBC]

Right of Indemnifier –

Section 125 of the Act only lays down the rights of the indemnified and is quite silent of the rights of indemnifier as if the indemnifier has no rights but only liability towards the indemnified.

In the logical state of things if we read Section 141 which deals with the rights of surety, we can easily conclude that the indemnifier’s right would also be same as that of surety.

Where one person has agreed to indemnify the other, he will, on making good the indemnity, be entitled to succeed to all the ways and means by which the person indemnified might have protected himself against or reimbursed himself for the loss. [Simpson v Thomson]

Principle of Subrogation is applicable because it is an essential part of law of indemnity and is based on equity and the Contract Act contains no provision in contravention with [Maharaja Shri Jarvat Singhji v Secretary of State for India] 

 

-------XXXXX------