UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD versus LEVIS STRAUSS (INDIA) PVT. LTD

Citation: [2022] 10 S.C.R. 231 · Decided: 02-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 6 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
231
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD.
v.
LEVIS STRAUSS (INDIA) PVT. LTD.
(Civil Appeal No. 2955 of 2022)
MAY 02, 2022
[UDAY UMESH LALIT, S. RAVINDRA BHAT AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Insurance – Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy (SFSP
Policy) – STP Policy – Insurance by different Insurers – When One
Insurance Policy ousts the application of Other Insurance Policy –
Respondent claimed benefit of insurance policy (SFSP Policy)
provided by the appellant-insurer – Per contra the appellant refused
to grant the benefit of insurance to the respondent upon the premise
that the losses suffered by the respondent were covered under
insurance policy (STP Policy) obtained from AGCS (respondent’s
parent company) – Aggrieved, the respondent approached the
NCDRC – NCDRC allowed the insurance claim of the respondent
holding that Condition-4 of SFSP policy would support the claim
of the appellant only if the other policy (the one issued by AGCS)
was a marine policy, which as per NCDRC, was not – Further by
virtue of S. 25 of the Nationalization Act, the respondent was under
obligation to cover the risks through a domestic policy, which they
did in the present case and hence were entitled to the full benefit of
SFSP Policy – On appeal, held: As far as obligation u/s. 25 of the
Nationalization Act is concerned, NCDRC was wrong – Mere
prohibition in s. 25 of the Nationalization Act clearly did not apply
to respondent’s parent company, which conducts business overseas
(and not only in India) and obtain a marine cover which catered to
all risks, (including marine risks as well as risks to the goods in
transit and when they were warehoused) – Therefore, the prohibition
in s.25 per se does not apply – Equally, there was no specific
provision requiring respondent to obtain a domestic policy, in the
conduct of its business – NCDRC also erred in holding that the STP
policy was not a marine policy since the policy, comprehensively
covered all kinds of risks including marine risks and what is material
is not whether the insurable event occurred during the voyage rather,
[2022] 10 S.C.R. 231
231
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
232
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
the focus is on the nature of the cover and the cover clearly and
unequivocally included marine perils therefore, it was a marine cover
– Condition No. 4 of the SFSP Policy, which constituted a contract
between the parties, precisely contemplated a situation whereby in
the event of occurrence of an insurance risk, if respondent (or
someone on its behalf, like in the present case the parent company)
was entitled to claim under a marine policy, the insurer was not to
be held liable – Therefore, condition No.4 operated to exclude the
appellant-insurer’s liability.
Words/Phrases – Double Insurance – discussed.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The expression “marine adventure” is defined
by Section 2(d). Similarly, “maritime peril” referred to in “marine
adventure” is defined in Section 2(e). Section 3 defines a marine
policy; Section 4, which is relevant for this case, deals with mixed
marine and land risks. It inter alia, enables coverage – through
“express terms, or by usage of trade” – extension of marine
policies “so as to protect the assured against losses on inland
waters or on any land risk which may be incidental to any sea
voyage.” Warehouse risks, combined with voyage and other
marine risks, are considered as part of marine insurance policies
in India. In the present case, the first two recitals of the STP
Policy, as well as the warehouse-to-warehouse transit (Clause 6)
and other stipulations clearly state that the policy covers both
marine and other risks. In fact, the STP describes itself as “OPEN
MARINE INSURANCE CONTRACT”. [Paras 28, 30, 31][250-
F, G-H; 252-D, G]
2. It is clear that the STP Policy was a marine policy which
comprehensively covered voyage, transit, transportation and
warehouse perils. As can be seen from the description of the
policy, and other express stipulations, all kinds of risks, including
marine risks were covered. In fact, different limits for “retail
locations” were provided; further Clause 6 also extended to
warehouse risks. In these circumstances, and having regard to
the law declared by this Court, what is material is not whether
the insurable event occurred during the voyage; rather, the focus
is on the nature of the cover. The cover in this case, clearly and
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
233
unequivocally included marine perils. Therefore,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.