FIRST APPEAL NO. 175 OF 2005 (From the order dated 07.03.05 in Complaint No. SC/2/0/2000 of West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Registered Office 24, White Road, Madras – 600 014. Divisional Office No. IV, At 2, Brabourne Road Police Station Hare Street Kolkata – 700 001 … Appellant Versus M/s. R. Piyarelall Import & Export Ltd. Registered & head Office 12, Govt. Place (East), Kolkata – 700 069. … Respondent AND FIRST APPEAL NO. 176 OF 2005 (From the order dated 15.03.05 in Complaint No. SC/3/0/2000 of West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Registered Office 24, White Road, Madras – 600 014. Divisional Office No. IV, At 2, Brabourne Road Police Station Hare Street Kolkata – 700 001 … Appellant Versus M/s. R. Piyarelall Import & Export Ltd. Registered & head Office 12, Govt. Place (East), Kolkata – 700 069. … Respondent BEFORE:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK BHAN, PRESIDENT HON’BLE MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER For the Appellant : Mr. K.L. Nandwani, Advocate For the Respondent : Mr. S. Nayak, AdvocateMr. T.B. Majumdar, Advocate PRONOUNCED ON 19th NOV. 2009 O R D E R MR. B.K. TAIMNI, MEMBER Appellant was the opposite party before the State Commission, where the respondents had filed two separate complaints alleging deficiency in service on the part of the Appellant. We go on to dispose off these appeals by a common order, as question of law involved in both these appeals is the same. We have taken the facts from First Appeal No. 175 of 2005. Very briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondent / complainant had obtained a ‘Marine Cargo Open Cover’ for Rs.7.50 crore on 18.03.96 wherein the Appellant agreed to grant insurance cover on the shipment of pulses in bags from Yangon and other ports to Kolkata, Bombay and Tuticorin from 18.3.96 to 17.3.97 against institute Cargo Clauses (All risks), ‘Institute war and strike, riot and civil commotion’ clauses. During course of its business, the respondent / complainant was receiving a shipment of Toor-whole dal in 3850 bags from Yangon to Bombay per MV Silver Kris, for which ‘marine cargo, i.e., transit and duty insurance for Rs.35,56,000/- and Rs.2,49,000/- respectively was obtained. The risk was assumed by the Appellant on 1.8.96 for which they issued ‘marine cargo and duty Policy’ on 1.8.96. it was the case of the complainant that at the time of receipt when they received the goods in Bombay, the surveyor appointed by the Appellant company, surveyed the consignment and found 509 bags short-landed and 471 bags in torn and burst open with their contents fully spilled-out. It is in these conditions a claim was preferred with the Appellant for Rs.6,66,865/- in addition to, compensation of Rs.1 lakh for loss of bank interest and interest towards the claimed amount. When the claim was not getting settled, a complaint was filed before the State Commission alleging deficiency in service. The matter was contested by the Appellant before us taking two main grounds, namely, the vessel used for import was not on the approved list of G.I.C., which was a violation of the condition of the Policy. It was also the stand of the Appellant before the State Commission that section 64 (V)(B) of the Indian Insurance Act, has not been complied with, i.e., premium for insurance had not been given, hence, there was no liability on the part of the Appellant insurance company. The State Commission after hearing the parties, through a detailed order accepted the complaints and passed the following orders:- (in Complaint no. SC/2/O/2000) “In view of the foregoing discussions, it is ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part on contest and the Insurance Company is directed to make the payment of the claim amount of Rs.6,66,865/- together with interest on the claim amount from 1st July 1997 till payment @12% (twelve) p.a. We also deem it appropriate to pass an order for litigation cost of Rs.1,000.00 (Rupees one thousand only) to be paid by the OP to the complainant. All the payments as awarded shall be made within two months from the date of service of the certified copy of the order, failing which the total awarded amount shall carry interest @8% (eight per cent) P.A. till the payment is made. The complaint petition is accordingly disposed of. ” (in Complaint no. SC/3/O/2000) “In view of the foregoing discussions, it is ordered that the complaint petition is allowed in part on contest and the Insurance Company is directed to make the payment of the claim amount of Rs.15,50,174/- together with interest on the claim amount from 1st February 1997 till payment @12% (twelve) p.a. We also deem it appropriate to pass an order for litigation cost of Rs.1,000.00 (Rupees one thousand only) to be paid by the OP to the complainant. All the payments as awarded shall be made within two months from the date of service of the certified copy of the order, failing which the defaulted awarded amount shall carry interest @8% (eight per cent) P.A. till the payment is made in full. The complaint petition is accordingly disposed of.” Aggrieved by the orders passed by the State Commission, these two separate appeals have been filed before us. We heard the learned Counsel for both the parties at some length and perused the material on record. Counsel for the Appellant has specifically and categorically raised three issues before us. Firstly, that the complaint is barred by limitation. As per the Appellants, the cause of action arose in 1996 whereas the complaint has been filed in the year 2000. We have seen the material on record and find that the consignments did arrive in Mumbai in the year 1996. The loss was assessed by the surveyor appointed by the Appellant during the same year after-which, the claim(s) were filed with the Appellant corporation. Till date they have neither rejected the claim nor did accept the claim except what was stated in the written version filed before the State Commission by the Appellants. As per well-settled law, the cause of action will arise from the date of repudiation. In the aforementioned circumstances, we find no merit in this contention of the Appellant. Till the time, the claim preferred by the complainants were disposed off by the Appellants, one way or the other, the cause of action would continue. In view of above, we see no merit in this plea and it stands rejected. Second leg of the argument is that the Ship(s), which carried the goods were not approved by G.I.C. We have very carefully gone through the material on record. It is not in dispute that while applying for the Insurance Cover in respect of the consignments, in question, the name(s) of the Ship(s) were indicated and no such query was raised. Insurance Cover was issued by the Appellants. Before us also there is no material brought on record that this vessel did not have the approval of G.I.C. State Commission was quite right in dismissing this objection of the Appellant when they noticed that additional premium of Rs.39,398/- was taken from the complainant to cover the contingency. In the aforementioned circumstances, we fully endorse the reasoning of the State Commission for rejecting this contention as detailed in the order passed by the State Commission. Last and third leg of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the Appellant is that there was a violation of Rule 58 (ii) of the Insurance Rules, 1939, which reads as under:- “58. Advance payment of premiums. – For the purposes of sub-section (I) of sec. 64 VB of the Act, a risk in respect of a policy may be assumed before the premium payable in respect thereof is received : (i) if the entire amount of the premium is guaranteed to be paid by a a Banking Company before the end of the calendar month next succeeding to the month in which the risk is assumed, if the premium due is not paid by the insured before that date; (ii) if an advance deposit is made with the insurer to the credit of the insured sufficient to cover the payment of the entire amount of the premium together with the premium, if any, due from the insured in respect of any other risk already assumed against such deposit, being agreed to be adjusted towards the premium before the end of the month next succeeding to the month in which the risk is assumed, if the premium due is not paid by the insured before that date.” We have carefully gone through the material on record. There is a statement brought on record by the complainant, wherein as on 7.8.96, a total sum of Rs.2,58,483/- was available with the Insurance Company and they have been merrily deducting the premiums in respect of various vessels and as on that date there was a balance of Rs.38,182/-. It is also not in dispute that another amount of Rs.39,398/- was paid to the Insurance Company on 20.08.96, meaning thereby, that there was sufficient funds available ‘in deposit’ with the Appellants, from which the premium could be deducted. As already held by the State Commission, it does not fall in the mouth of the Appellant, now to say, that premium was not paid, for the simple reason that after having issued the Policy in respect of given voyage(s) in question, they had no locus to allege that policy is void for non-payment of premium. It is by now well-settled proposition of insurance law that policy is issued only after the insurer is satisfied about the receipt of the premium. In any case, as discussed above, there was balance available as well as additional amount having been charged, in view of which the applicability of provision of Rule 58(ii) of the Insurance Rules, 1939 will not be attracted. It is equally important to note that all these pleas now proffered before us were never communicated to the complainant till the time written version was filed before the State Commission. Long silence on the part of the Appellant is evident enough of the guilt on their part. Since no other point has been urged, we find no merit in this appeal. However, we are of the view that the interest @12% p.a. awarded by the State Commission is on the higher side. Hon’ble Supreme Court, in catena of judgements, has awarded interest @9% p.a. in view of which the rate of interest is reduced from 12% p.a. to 9% p.a. The appeals are allowed only to the extent that the rate of interest is reduced from 12% p.a. to 9% p.a. Rest of the order passed by the State Commission is maintained. The appeals stand disposed off in above terms.