Interim orders for statuary deposits must secure interests of both parties, emphasizing adequacy and realizability of security offered while preserving the status quo until the resolution of appeals.

ORDER

JUSTICE A.P. SAHI, PRESIDENT

1. This Revision Petition has been filed by the Insurance Company praying for setting aside two interlocutory Orders passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Telangana dated 22.04.2025 and 07.03.2025 in pending Appeal No. 831/2023. The Petition had been initially framed as a Second Appeal which we have permitted to be converted into a Revision Petition by the Order dated 03.06.2025. The said Order is extracted hereinunder:

“We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we are satisfied that the present compilation has to be treated as a revision petition keeping in view the nature of the orders which are under challenge and not a second appeal. The conversion of this appeal into a revision under Section 58 (1) (b) is permitted. We therefore direct the Registry to renumber this appeal as a revision petition and not as a second appeal.

We have also heard the matter on merits. Mr. Gola has been heard for the petitioner and Mr. Sukumar Pattjoshi for the respondent.

Orders on 11.06.2025.”

2. The background in which the Orders came to be passed is that a Complaint was filed by the Respondent Complainant for indemnification of an Insurance claim under a Contractor All Risks Policy, the duration whereof was for two years from 25.03.2015 to 24.03.2017. The sum insured was Rs. 162,73,57,707/- for a contract value of Rs. 159,98,50,707/-. The contract was for the project works titled “Modification and Reconstruction of Energy Dissipation Arrangement of the Main Spill way of Indira Sagar Dam”, Narmada Nagar, District Khandwa, Madhya Pradesh. The Respondent Company is located at Hyderabad and the Petitioner insurers are also at Hyderabad.

3. The Complainant paid a gross premium of Rs. 50,19,426/- and the premium amount was payable in seven instalments as per the chart given below:

4. It is evident from the chart that the 5^th and 6^th instalments were paid with a delay on 17.08.2016 whereas the 7^th instalment was paid and received in advance on 19.08.2016. The premium was accepted and according to the Respondents, the Policy was therefore regularised.

5. Since the project was not completed as per the schedule, its completion period was purportedly extended and so was the Insurance policy.

6. According to the Complainant, certain losses were suffered between 5^th to 14^th August, 2016 due to heavy discharge of flood water and then once again on 01.09.2016, causing a huge damage to the works. The Complainant with regard to such losses tendered claim forms estimating the loss and seeking indemnification. The Insurance Company appointed the Surveyors and loss assessors who made an interim assessment and a final survey report was tendered on 07.01.2019. The claim was not settled and communications went on but on 04.09.2019, the claim was repudiated on the ground that there was a break in the policy period due to non-receipt of timely 5^th and 6^th instalments as per the chart indicated above. It was also observed that there were two incidents during 5^th and 14^th August 2016 and then on 22.08.2016 and further damage on 01.09.2016. Consequently, the claim was repudiated due to non-payment of premium instalments as per agreed schedule as a result whereof CC No. 323 of 2020 was filed and after exchange of affidavits and pleadings, the Complaint was allowed on 23.02.2023 holding that there was deficiency in service, directing the payment of Rs. 8,53,08,762/- together with interest @ 6% and compensation of Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 25,000/- as litigation costs. The Order was passed by a three Member Bench of the District Commission – III, Hyderabad. A review application was filed that was disposed of on 18.04.2023. Aggrieved, the Insurance Co