ORDER

DR. SADHNA SHANKER, MEMBER

1.       This appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 22.02.2018 of the State Commission in complaint no. 09 of 2012, whereby the complaint of the complainant was dismissed.

2.       We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record including the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 22.02.2018 and the memorandum of appeal.

3.       The appeal has been filed with reported delay of 03 days.

In the interest of justice, inter alia considering the reasons given in the application for condonation of delay, the short delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

4.       The brief facts of the case are that the complainant, a proprietor of firm, namely, K. G. Digital Plate, installed a Pre-press Unit at Lakhe Nagar, Raipur in November 2009. The said Pre-Press Unit consists of articles, namely, Plate Exposing Machine, Processor, 4 P.C. Scanner, 2 U.P.S. 30 batteries etc. Initially, in October – November 2008, A UV Setter Machine and a Plate Processor were purchased by one M/s Jai Badri Vishal Graphics, Gwalior from Monotech Systems Limited. The complainant was the partner of M/s Jai Badri Vishal Graphics. In November 2009, the said UV Setter Processor was shifted from M/s Jai Badri Vishal Graphics, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh to “K.D. Digital Plates”, Lakhe Nagar, Raipur. On 17.05.2010 the complainant booked a transporter, namely, M/s Raipur Delhi Roadways to transport the said U.V. Setter – Processor, two computer, scanner office furniture, electrical fitting and domestic articles from Raipur to Nagpur vide bilty no. 2291 in which the complainant is consignor and consignee both. To ensure safe transit of the goods, the complainant obtained a Specific Voyage Policy dated 17.05.2010 for insured sum of Rs. 92,35,000/- by paying the premium of Rs. 17,572/-. On 18.05.2010 the truck which was carrying the aforesaid articles met with an accident, and fell in a gorge and caught fire. The complainant informed the respondent on 19.05.2010, the police on 20.05.2010 and the complainant lodged the insurance claim. On 21.05.2010, the respondent appointed a preliminary surveyor to conduct the spot survey. The spot survey was conducted on 21.05.2010. The preliminary surveyor concluded that the said claim is a doubtful one and recommended that the matter should be investigated at a high level before settling the claim. Thereafter, M/s J. Basheer & Associates Surveyors Pvt. Ltd., final surveyor was appointed, who vide its letter No. JBPL/114/10-11 dated 18.11.10 had asked the insured many questions and concluded that the complainant has no insurable interest over the insured goods and the incident appears to have taken under mysterious circumstances. This letter was never replied to. The complainant’s claim was repudiated by the insurance company vide its letter dated 25.03.2011 on the basis of surveyor’s observation that the complainant did not have insurable interest on the subject matter of insurance and the incident appears to have taken under mysterious circumstances.

5.       Aggrieved by the repudiation by the insurance company, the complainant filed a complaint before the State Commission. The State Commission vide impugned Order dated 22.02.2018 dismissed the complaint.

6.       Aggrieved by the said Order of the State Commission, the complainant filed the instant appeal before this Commission.

7.       Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the complainant has insurable interest as the complainant booked the articles for transportation and he himself was the consignor and consignee. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on Section 7 and 16 of the Marine Insurance Act, 1963, which are reproduced below for reference:

Section 7 – Insurable interest defined.

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, every person has an insurable interest who is interested in a marine a