ORDER

This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, made on April 21, 1976 in Appeal No. 157/73.

2. The admitted facts are that Vijay Commercial Corporation submitted a proposal for insurance to cover certain risks, viz., supply of 12 Bulldozers of Yugoslavian make, under Ex. A-22 dated July 23, 1966, which was subsequently extended by fresh policy, Ex. A-3, dated July 27, 1966, wherein the Chief Engineer of State of Orissa was also included as one of the insured. The insurance coverage was for Rs. 27 lakhs. Before commencement of the contract for said supply, a notice was issued on December 6, 1966 cancelling the insurance. Since the appellant had claimed under the insurance policy, the Insurance Company, namely, Hindustan Ideal Insurance Company Ltd., laid a suit in the trial Court for declaration that the insurance coverage was duly cancelled and for consequential injunction. The trial Court granted the decree. On appeal, the High Court confirmed the same by the above judgment. Thus, this appeal by special leave.

3. The only question is : whether the appellant is entitled to damages from the Insurance Company for non-supply of 12 bulldozers through their agent, Vijay Commercial Corporation, who had the insurance from the Insurance Company. The High Court extracted all the relevant clauses in the contract of insurance and held that it was a "Marine and Transit Insurance" policy under Ex. A-22 and non-supply of bulldozers was not a condition of this policy and further, since, under the contract the insurer was entitled to terminate the contract in terms of the insurance, the cancellation thereof was valid in law and that the respondents were not liable for damages for non-supply of the goods.

4. Section 3 of the Marine Insurance Act, 1963, (Act 11 of 1963) (for short, the Act ) contemplates that a contract of marine insurance is an agreement whereby the insurer undertakes to indemnify the assured, in the manner and to the extent thereby agreed, against marine losses, that is to say, the losses incidental to marine adventure. The expression "Contract of Marine Insurance" has been defined in Section 2(a) to mean a contract of marine insurance as defined by Section 3. "Marine Adventure" has been defined under Section 2(d) to include any adventure where any insurable property is exposed to maritime perils. "Maritime perils" has been defined in Section 2(e) and means the perils consequent on, or incidental to, the navigation of the sea, that is to say, perils of the seas, fire, war perils, pirates, rovers, thieves, captures, seizures, restraints and detainments of princes and peoples, jettisons, battery and any other perils which are either of the like kind or may be designated by the policy. Section 3 of the Act envisages that :

"A contract of marine insurance is an agreement whereby the insurer undertakes to indemnify the assured, in the manner and to the extent thereby agreed, against marine losses, that is to say, the losses incidental to marine adventure."

Section 4 of the Act is a composite policy as regards mixed sea and land risks. It contemplates thus :

"4(1) A contract of marine insurance may, by its express terms, or by usage or trade, 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."

Sub-section (2) and the explanation thereto are not relevant for the purpose of this case, hence omitted.

5. The question, therefore, is : whether the insurance coverage under Ex. A-22 includes non-supply of 12 bulldozers contracted by Vijaya Commercial Corporation, which had undertaken to supply the same to the appellant. Though it is contended that the insurance liability starts only from destination Calcutta Port to any place in Orissa, we cannot accept the same for the reason that the contract of insurance under Ex. A-22 is a composite one. It reads as under :

"Risk to attach only when the goods