JUDGMENT :

(Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.) :

1. Heard Sri Dhruba Ghosh, learned senior advocate, assisted by Sri Soumajit Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellant/respondent and Sri Soumya Majumder, learned counsel, assisted by Sri Debraj Sahu, learned counsel for the respondents/writ petitioners.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the present case are that the respondents/writ petitioners took a Multi-buyer Exposure Policy No. MBE0050008485 which was issued by the appellants to the respondents/writ petitioners on 16.01.2012 covering the period commencing from 28.12.2011 to 27.12.2012, for an aggregate loss limit of Rs.5 crore. The Insurance Premium was Rs. 9,10,000/-but its payment was to made in four equal quarterly instalments of Rs. 2,27,500/-each, falling due on 28.12.2011, 28.03.2012, 28.06.2012 and 28.09.2012. The third instalment which fell due on 28.06.2012 was not deposited in time by the respondents/writ petitioners. A shipment was made by the respondents/writ petitioners on 27.07.2012 to one M/s. Techpack Tanzania Limited, but the consignment was neither received by the consignee nor its payment was made. Therefore, the respondents/writ petitioners submitted an application dated 20.11.2012 before the appellant/respondent for permission for re-import of the shipment dated 27.07.2012. Approval to the aforesaid request was granted by the appellant/respondent by a letter dated 29.11.2012, subject to terms of the policy and verification. Subsequently, the respondents/writ petitioners made payment of third instalment on 03.12.2012 and the last instalment on 06.12.2012, which both were accepted by the appellant without any objection. Thereafter, the respondents/writ petitioners lodged a claim on 25.04.2013 which was rejected by the appellant/respondent on 15.05.2013 on two grounds, as under:-

“1) Section 64VB of Insurance Act, 1938 regarding payment of advance premium was not complied with.

2) Report of Default was submitted with a delay of 67 days.”

3. Against the aforesaid rejection, the respondents/writ petitioners submitted representations including the representation dated 23.12.2013. The representation was rejected by the competent authority by order dated 24.03.2014, as under:-

“The Committee decided to reject the claim as there was no premium available to cover the exports in question since the installment due to be paid on 28.06.2012 was paid by the Company only on 03.10.2012.”

4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid rejection order, the respondents/writ petitioners filed Writ Petition No.94 of 2015 [Mittal Technopack Private Limited & Another v. ECGC Limited], which was allowed by the impugned order dated 27.01.2017 passed by the Learned Single Judge.

5. Aggrieved, the appellant/respondent has filed the present appeal.

6. Both the learned counsel for the parties jointly submit that the following questions need to be answered in the present appeal:

a. “Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case there was a valid insurance cover under the Policy for the period from 28.06.2012 to 03.12.2012 to cover the shipment made on 27.07.2012 when the third instalment due and payable by 28.06.2012 covering period from 28.06.2012 to 26.09.2012 was paid by the writ petitioners on 03.12.2012?

b. Whether under the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the provisions of Section 64VB of the Insurance Act, 1938, the Writ Court has lawfully allowed the insurance claim of the writ petitioners?”

7. Submissions on behalf of the appellant:-

(i) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the policy was for one year and the premium was payable in four equal quarterly instalments on dates specified in the policy itself. The respondents/writ petitioners did not pay the third instalment on due date i.e. 28.06.2012. Therefore, the shipment in question dated 27.07.2012 was not covered under the policy. The refusal to receive goods or not to make payment by the consignee happened sometime in August 2012. Both the events were not covered