Insurance – Standard Fire & Special Perils Policy (SFSP Policy) – STP Policy – Insurance by different Insurers – When One Insurance Policy ousts the application of Other Insurance Policy – Respondent claimed benefit of insurance policy (SFSP Policy) provided by the appellant-insurer – Per contra the appellant refused to grant the benefit of insurance to the respondent upon the premise that the losses suffered by the respondent were covered under insurance policy (STP Policy) obtained from AGCS (respondent’s parent company) – Aggrieved, the respondent approached the NCDRC – NCDRC allowed the insurance claim of the respondent holding that Condition-4 of SFSP policy would support the claim of the appellant only if the other policy (the one issued by AGCS) was a marine policy, which as per NCDRC, was not – Further by virtue of S. 25 of the Nationalization Act, the respondent was under obligation to cover the risks through a domestic policy, which they did in the present case and hence were entitled to the full benefit of SFSP Policy – On appeal, held: As far as obligation u/s. 25 of the Nationalization Act is concerned, NCDRC was wrong – Mere prohibition in s. 25 of the Nationalization Act clearly did not apply to respondent’s parent company, which conducts business overseas (and not only in India) and obtain a marine cover which catered to all risks, (including marine risks as well as risks to the goods in transit and when they were warehoused) – Therefore, the prohibition in s.25 per se does not apply – Equally, there was no specific provision requiring respondent to obtain a domestic policy, in the conduct of its business – NCDRC also erred in holding that the STP policy was not a marine policy since the policy, comprehensively covered all kinds of risks including marine risks and what is material is not whether the insurable event occurred during the voyage rather the focus is on the nature of the cover and the cover clearly and unequivocally included marine perils therefore, it was a marine cover – Condition No. 4 of the SFSP Policy, which constituted a contract between the parties, precisely contemplated a situation whereby in the event of occurrence of an insurance risk, if respondent (or someone on its behalf, like in the present case the parent company) was entitled to claim under a marine policy, the insurer was not to be held liable – Therefore, condition No.4 operated to exclude the appellant-insurer’s liability. Words/Phrases – Double Insurance – discussed.