The Supreme Court observed in the case United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Levi’s Strauss (India) Pvt. And noted that the same incident the second insurer is not being liable and when the defined loss of the insured is fully indemnified by the one insurer, the court contended in the cases of overlapping insurance policies. It is also being stipulated in the STP policy that it covers both the marine and the other risks as it is an Open Marine Insurance Contract, the Marine policy itself describes it and therefore in a marine cover the court further observed that it also includes the marine perils. The Court further noticed that the marine insurance policies in India include warehouse risks, combined with voyage and other marine risks, the court while referring to a catena of judgments. The Section 4 of the Marine Insurance Act, 1963 states that the be extended so as to protect the assured against losses on inland waters or on any land risk which may be incidental to any sea voyage of marine insurance by usage of trade or its express terms. the primary obligation was on the domestic insurer the respondent submitted that the coverage under the two policies were mutually exclusive – SFSP Policy expressly excluded loss other than manufacturing as a result of fire; which was covered by the STP Policy as then it would indicate that the insurer was collecting premia without any liability, if not so. the insured was under a contractual obligation to get its risk covered under a domestic policy and under Clause 47 of the STP Policy. It was being pointed out. under Section 2(c)(b) of the Insurance Act, 1938 and Section 25 of the Nationalization Act there is an obligation to arrange insurance through a domestic insurer, the contentions raised by the respondent was being submitted before the court by Senior Advocate, Mr. Joy Basu, appearing on behalf of the insured. The appellant argued that the insured had received more money than admitted loss Furthermore Mr. De highlighted that the claim was for Rs. 12.4 crores, against which it received Rs. 19.52 from Allianz. Condition No. 4 of the SFSP Policy and Clause 47 of the STP Policy by NCDRC to hold that loss caused to goods was covered by SFSP Policy while STP Policy covered loss of earnings, the appellant assailed the interpretation and also It was asserted that the loss suffered being a composite one could not have been bifurcated that the foreign policy, i.e., STP Policy covered fire risk to the stock while in transit and also in store and elsewhere, the contentions raised by appellant and submitted before the court by Advocate, Mr. A.K. De, appearing on behalf of the insurer. The Apex Court noted that in the present case the issue was that of ‘double insurance’ and ‘overlapping policy’. Where the coverage of risks of the same or similar incidents from two insurance policies was being seek by the entity before the court and while assailing the order of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), the court allowed the plea. In an order it is stated that the insurance company is liable to pay Rs. 1.78 crores towards the claim raised by the insured as the contract of insurance is the insurance company is and always will continues to be one for indemnity of the defined loss, no more no less, such as those arising from loss due to fire, etc., in the case of specific risk the insured cannot profit and take advantage by double insurance was observed by the Bench comprising of Justice UU Lalit, justice S. Ravindra Bhat and the justice P.S. Narasimha.
