Insurance covers only the named legal entity; subsidiary shipments fall outside policy scope.

The Plaintiff, an export company, filed a suit for recovery of an insurance claim of ₹2,82,06,229/- against the Defendant (ECGC).

The Plaintiff held a Single Buyer Exposure (SBE) Policy (No. SBE/0270003142) for the period 2019-2020, covering exports to "Mothercare PLC".

In November 2019, "Mothercare UK Ltd." (a subsidiary of Mothercare PLC) entered administration.

The Plaintiff filed a claim for unpaid shipments made to Mothercare UK Ltd. between May and October 2019.

The Defendant rejected the claim on multiple grounds: (i) shipments were made to "Mothercare UK Ltd." while the insured buyer was "Mothercare PLC"; (ii) the Plaintiff continued shipments despite prior defaults; and (iii) the Report of Default (ROD) was filed belatedly.

The Defendant filed an application under Order XIII-A of the CPC for a summary judgment to dismiss the suit.

1. Whether the Plaintiff has a real prospect of succeeding in the claim given that the shipments were made to a legal entity (Mothercare UK Ltd.) different from the named "Insured Buyer" (Mothercare PLC).

2. Whether the Plaintiff violated the express terms of the SBE Policy regarding the cessation of shipments upon default and the timely notification of a Report of Default (ROD).

3. Whether oral evidence can be admitted to vary the written terms of the insurance policy under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act.

Order XIII-A of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which allows for summary judgment if a party has "no real prospect of succeeding" and there is no compelling reason for a trial.

Guidelines for summary judgment established in Reliance Eminent Trading & Commercial (P) Ltd. v. DDA and Su-kam Power Systems Ltd vs. Kunwer Sachdev.

Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which exclude oral evidence that contradicts, varies, or adds to the terms of a written contract.

Precedents like Mangala Waman Karandikar v. Prakash Damodar Ranade and Tamil Nadu Electricity Board v. N. Raju Reddiar affirming that parties are strictly bound by the clear, unambiguous terms of a written insurance policy.

The Court observed that the SBE Policy explicitly defined the "Insured Buyer" as the entity specified in the Schedule, which was "Mothercare PLC".

Applying Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act, the Court rejected the Plaintiff’s argument that "Mothercare UK Ltd." should be covered as a subsidiary, holding that they are distinct legal entities and the policy terms cannot be varied by oral claims of "advice from officials".

The Court further found that the Plaintiff admitted to violating Clause 2(a) by continuing 87 shipments after the first payment default on 26.07.2019.

The Plaintiff failed to comply with Clause 3(b) by filing the ROD on 13.12.2019, well beyond the mandated deadline of the 15th day of the succeeding month after a 30-day default.

Under Section 58 of the Evidence Act, these admitted facts required no further proof.

The application under Order XIII-A was allowed, and the suit was dismissed.

When a document is straightforward, oral evidence to show different intent is prohibited, and the strict observance of policy obligations is a condition precedent to the insurer's liability.