ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for both sides. At the outset, the counsel for the complainant submitted that the legal issues covered in the present case are squarely covered as per this Commission’s order dated 25th September, 2024, in CC No. 2276 of 2016, wherein the issue of insurable interest has been considered and adjudicated at length, and the consumer complaint was allowed. The said order was not challenged and has become final. Not only that, the Insurance Company in that case has paid the requisite claim to the complainant as per that order. The complainant, as well as OP-1 Insurance Company, in the present case, as well as in the CC No. 2276 of 2016, referred to above, are the same. However, OP-2 in that case was M/s Beryy Alloys Ltd., while in the present case it is M/s Special Blast Ltd.

2. The counsel representing both OP-1 Insurance Company as well as OP-2 submitted that, in view of the findings of this Commission in CC No. 2276 of 2016 dated 25.09.2024, which have become final, and considering that issues involved are exactly the same, they have no objection if the present complaint is also disposed of in terms of the said order dated 25.09.2024. In the present case, the claim was repudiated vide repudiation letter dated 07.10.2015 (page 44), which is reproduced below:

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

D.O3, R.K. PLAZA, RING ROAD No.’l

NEAR PRAKASH SWIMMING POOL,

PANCHPEDINAKA, RAIPUR

Phone 41133452 / Fax: 07712887195

By Regular A/D

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

DATE: 07/10/2015

To,

M/s PEC LTD.

15, HANSALAYA

BARAKHAMBA ROAD

NEW DELHI-110001

Re: Repudiation letter for claim of PEC LTD

Kindly refer to the claim lodged by you under the policy no. 119911550000//1111//22001155//220077 vviiddee your loss Intimation lleetttteerr ddaatteedd 1144//1100//22001144., As per documents submitted by you It Is framed that PEC LTD. does not have invaluable interests the tine of loss once the competent hhaass decided to repudiate your claim.

Thanking You

Yours Faithfully

Divisional Manager

3. A perusal of this letter clearly shows that the only reason for repudiation of the claim was that the complainant did not have an insurable interest at the time of loss. The complainant herein, M/s PEC Limited, is a Government of India enterprise/ public sector undertaking. In the case referred to above, i.e., CC No. 2276 of 2016, also the claim was repudiated by the Insurance Company on same reason, i.e., the complainant not having an insurable interest. This issue was discussed and adjudicated at length through the said order dated 25.09.2024. The extract of the relevant paragraphs of the said order is reproduced below:

“24. We have considered the submissions raised and perused the documents on record. The claim of a public sector undertaking, and not a private company has been repudiated by raising doubts and then concluding that the complainant did not have an insurable interest for the claim. It may be clarified that the Deed of Pledge categorically records that the complainant shall have an exclusive first charge on the said material. Since the consignment had been pledged, the complainant continued to have an insurable interest for any loss caused to the Cargo/ stock. A reference to the Marine Insurance Act, 1963, Section 7,17 and 52 is necessary that has been extracted in paragraph 27 of the complaint. A conjoint reading of these sections would demonstrate that the complainant continues to have a right to recover any insurable interest and the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the same. The insurable interest does not get eclipsed nor does it vanish or evapo