JUDGMENT

M.S. Sonak, J. - Heard Mr J.P. Mulgaonkar, learned Senior Advocate, who appears along with Ms Rupa Benaulikar for the Appellant, and Mr U. R. Timble, who appears along with Ms Yadika Mandrekar for the Respondent.

2. The Appellant (original Plaintiff) appeals the Judgment and Decree dated 31/03/2015, by which the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vasco da Gama, Goa, dismissed the Special Civil Suit No.31/2008/B, seeking damages and compensation.

3. For convenience, the parties will be referred to by their title in the suit, i.e. the Appellant will be referred to as the Plaintiff and the Respondent as the Defendant.

4. Plaintiff, the owner of the barge M V Arun, insured the same with Defendant for an amount of Rs.60.00 lakhs. This insurance policy was effective from 22/11/2002 to 21/11/2003 (midnight). However, the insured barge was accidentally grounded in the river Zuari on 3/2/2003. Accordingly, Plaintiff sought indemnification from Defendant by raising a claim on 3/2/2003 itself. Defendant promptly appointed a surveyor by their letter dated 4/2/2003, and the surveyor called upon Plaintiff to invite tenders to select a salvor to undertake the salvage operations.

5. The Plaintiff, accordingly, invited tenders and awarded the salvage contract to Mr Kishor Nadkarni, who was the lowest bidder. This contract was awarded with the approval of the surveyor. The salvage operations were to be completed in two phases. The first phase was to offload the iron ore fines and move the vessel alongside the riverside bank. For this, Plaintiff agreed to pay the Salvor an amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs. The second phase was to re-float the barge and deliver the same in upright condition at Cabral Dry Dock at Quellosim, for which Plaintiff agreed to pay the Salvor an amount of Rs.13.00 lakhs. The Plaintiff has pleaded that the vessel's delivery was to be certified by the surveyor appointed by the Defendant-Insurance Company.

6. Plaintiff then pleaded that Salvor wrote some letters to the Insurance Company, which Mr Nadkarni prepared (Salvor), and Plaintiff's signature was obtained thereon under "constrained circumstances". Reference was made to Certificate dated 6/3/2003 and the letter dated 13/2/2004. This Certificate and the letters stated that the repairs were complete and the vessel was ready for delivery. This letter called upon the Defendants to pay an amount of Rs.33.00 lakhs to Mr Nadkarni (Salvor) in the full and final settlement.

7. Plaintiff then alleged that the delivery of the insured barge was never handed over by Mr Nadkarni (Salvor) to Plaintiff. Mr Nadkarni (Salvor) raised disputes about further payments. The matter was ultimately referred to arbitration, in which even Plaintiff raised a counter-claim. Eventually, the Arbitrator made an award on 31st March 2006, directing the Plaintiff to pay Mr Nadkarni (Salvor) an amount of Rs.5,28,500/- against delivery of the insured barge. However, Plaintiff's counter-claim against Mr Nadkarni (Salvor) was dismissed.

8. The Plaintiff, in his plaint, which was instituted on 9/9/2008, has alleged that the Defendant-Insurance Company should have verified through its surveyor whether the barge repairs were indeed completed and delivery was made to the Plaintiff. Therefore, because of failure on the part of the Defendants-Insurance Company to do so, Plaintiff has incurred damages and is liable to be compensated. Further, the plaint alleges that the action of the Defendant-Insurance Company to close the file of the Plaintiff's claim vide letter dated 24/4/2006 is arbitrary and perverse. Hence, the suit claiming a decree for Rs.60,00,000/- towards the total insurance amount, a decree of Rs.10,12,37,000/- for loss of business profits, a decree for Rs. 5,28,500/- which the Plaintiff was required to pay to Mr Nadkarni (Salvor) in terms of the arbitration award and finally for a declaration that the letter dated 24/4/2006, closing the Plaintiff's claim file is illegal, arbitrary, perverse, contrary to the contrac