( 1 ) THE original plaintiffs are in appeal being dissatisfied with the Judgment and Decree dated 13-10-1995 passed by the district and Sessions Judge, South Goa, at margao, whereby the plaintiffs suit for declaration that the defendants are bound to indemnify the plaintiffs under the Insurance policy dated 24-12-1969 in respect of the claim against the plaintiffs by reasons of any loss or damage caused due to the operation of the barge "m. V. Prabhat" to the extent of rs. 5,00,000/- came to be dismissed.

( 2 ) ON 02-11-1972, the plaintiffs filed the suit against the defendants (the respondents herein ). The plaintiffs set up the case that they were owners of the barge known as "m. V. Prabhat (MRH 126)". By an agreement dated 06-08-1969 the plaintiffs agreed to sell the said barge to Prakashchand jain and Jivanmal Jain for a consideration of rs. 4,00,000/-, payable in instalments stipulated in the said agreement. The possession of the barge was given to the purchasers on the date of the agreement. The plaintiffs had insured the said barge with the south British Insurance Company Ltd. but since the buyers insisted for insuring the said barge with the defendants, the proposal was sent on 13-08-1969. On 08-09-1969, the defendants issued a cover-note against the standard Institute Time Clauses (Hulls) Risks from 13-08-1969 to 13-08-1970 whilst in navigation. The Insurance Policy was issued by the defendants on 24-12-1969. The issuance of the policy was delayed because the defendants had sought certain clarifications regarding the actual premium rates from the tariff Advisory Committee. On 04-11-1969, the said barge, while being navigated by the crew of the buyers, collided against the Borim bridge causing damage and the two spans of the Borim Bridge were broken. The Union of india filed a Civil Suit against the plaintiffs, the purchasers, Master and the Engineer claiming compensation of Rs. 24,00,000/ -. The said suit was filed on 08-06-1972 and decreed by the District Judge, Margao on 11-02-1993. Thereby the present plaintiffs were directed to pay to the Union of India a sum of rs. 8,89,129. 23 with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the suit until the payment. In execution of the said decree, the plaintiffs had to pay a total amount of Rs. 22,33,283/- to the Union of India, according to the plaintiffs, at the time when the suit was filed by the Union of India third party proceedings were not available. That necessitated the present plaintiffs to file the present suit against the defendants to indemnify an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- under the Policy" dated 24-12-1969 in respect of the claim made against the plaintiffs and interest thereon.

( 3 ) THE defendants filed their written statement and denied the plaintiffs claim. Inter alia, the defendants set up their defence that they were entitled to repudiate the said policy of insurance on account of two breaches committed by the plaintiffs; (one) that the barge m. V. Prabhat did not have a Survey certificate as provided under the Inlaand vessels Act; and (two) that the master of the barge Rajaram Saunto was not qualified to man the barge at the relevant time inasmuch as did not have first class certificate.

( 4 ) ON the basis of the pleadings of the parties, various issues were framed by the learned trial Court.

( 5 ) THE plaintiffs in support of their case examined Deuji Vithaldas (PW. 1) and produced documentary evidence. On the other hand, the defendants examined three witnesses, namely (1) Sataprakash Gupta (DW. 1), (2) jaime Alberto (DW. 2) and (3) Agostinho P. Mascarenhas (DW. 3 ). The defendants also produced documentary evidence.

( 6 ) THE District and Sessions Judge, alter hearing the arguments, dismissed the plaintiffs suit on 13-10-1995.

( 7 ) MR. A. J. Kenkre, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, assailing the judgment of the learned trial Judge, submitted that the survey From No. 6 was produced to show that the barge was surveyed and d

Click Here to Read the rest of this document