IMPORTANT POINTS
Each clause in the policy must be construed reasonably in order to give effect to the plain and obvious intention of the parties as ascertainable from the whole instrument.
Liability of insurer cannot extend to more than what is covered by the policy.
Goods transported in unrelated to ordinary method of transportation will not be covered by "in transit" expression of the policy.

JUDGMENT

Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, J.

1 Leave granted.

2. The present appeals arise from a judgment of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ["NCDRC"] dated 10 August 2018 which in first appeal upheld the judgment of the Madhya Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission ["SCDRC"]. The SCDRC held the appellant to be deficient in its service and directed it to pay compensation of Rs. 64,89,205 towards the cost of repair of a helicopter to the respondent. Both the appellant and the respondent had preferred appeals against the order of the SCDRC. The NCDRC dismissed the appeal [First Appeal No. 279 of 2009] preferred by the appellant and partly allowed the appeal [First Appeal No .25 of 2010] preferred by the respondent for enhancement of compensation and awarded interest at the rate of six percent per annum.

3. The respondent purchased a "Transit Marine Insurance Policy" from the appellant on 21 July 2005, to cover the transportation of a Bell - 430 Helicopter from Langley, Canada to Bhopal, India. By an acceptance letter dated 1 July 2005, the appellant set out the transit route for the transportation of the helicopter by air, sea and road. By a letter dated 10 July 2005, the proposed route was altered as follows:

"Transit Details: Langley to Pithampur/Bhopal (by road/ by air)."

4. The policy schedule issued by the appellant indicated that the policy was issued from 22 July 2005 for transportation of the helicopter with standard packaging from Langley to Bhopal for a total sum insured of Rs. 20,00,00,000. The policy was to be governed by the accompanying clauses that included, inter alia, Institute Cargo Clauses (Air Cargo) ["ICC"], Institute War Clauses (Air Cargo), Institute Strike Clauses (Air Cargo), and an Institute Theft Pilferage Non Delivery Clause that listed out the terms and conditions of all damages and loss covered under the policy. The duration of the policy was to be governed in terms of Clause 5 of the ICC. On 5 October 2005, the helicopter was transported in a knocked down state by air to New Delhi. On 13 October 2005, the helicopter was cleared by the customs and was shifted to a hangar at New Delhi. On 21 October 2005, the helicopter was inspected by a representative of the manufacturer during routine inspection and the window of the crew door was reported to be damaged. The respondent sought the permission of the Director General of Civil Aviation to fly the helicopter to Bhopal but was denied permission on account of the damage to the window of the crew door. By a letter dated 22 October 2005, the respondent informed the appellant of the damage and stated that the helicopter was "being assembled at the Hangar of Indamer Co. located at Delhi so that the Helicopter can fly from Delhi to Bhopal". On 23 November 2005, the respondent informed the appellant that upon inspection, the tail boom of the helicopter was found to be damaged. A surveyor was appointed by the appellant to assess the alleged damage to the window of the crew door and the tail boom of the helicopter. By a report dated 14 March 2006, the surveyor concluded as follows:

"The damage to window glass of pilot seat and damage to tail boom of helicopter are two separate incidents not related to each other.

The replacement cost of damaged window glass of pilot seat is below Rs 10,00,000 and hence would fall under the excess prescribed under the policy.

The damage to the tail boom had occurred at Hangar #3, Bay 15/33 IGI Airport Delhi after substantial assembly but prior to test flight and not during transit and hence would not fall under the purview of marine insurance policy as issued to the insured."

5. By a letter dated 10 April 2006, the appellant informed the respondent that the damage to the tail boom was not detected during transit or customs clearance and it was only detected in the third week of November 2005 before which multiple inspections had been carried out and no damage was reported earlier. The appellant further i