Specific pleadings necessary for allegations of fraud and undue influence. Contract of marine insurance deemed concluded under Section 23 of Marine Insurance Act.

1. Appellants are the defendants in O.S.217 of 1983 of the Additional Sub Court, Cochin. Respondent (plaintiff) filed the suit to recover a sum of Rs.54,334/- being the amount due to him on account of damages caused to his fishing boat which was covered by an insurance policy. The learned Additional Sub Judge decreed the suit for the amount claimed with interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation and proportionate costs.

2. Plaintiff owned a fishing boat which was insured with the defendants. It is the case of the plaintiff that apart from the policy of insurance he had taken monsoon coverage in respect of the boat for one month. It is further stated that, the boat was in good condition, that on 13-6-1981 the boat sailed from Cochin with the members of the crew, and that on 15-6-1981 plaintiff came to know that the boat which was drifted away by violent waves met with accident. Plaintiff sent notice claiming an amount of Rs.69,735/- as damages from the defendants. The surveyor who conducted the survey had auctioned the engine of the boat and it was purchased by the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.15,401/-. Plaintiff claims the balance amount in the suit. Defendants filed written statement contending inter alia that there was no policy for the monsoon coverage and hence they are not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff.

3. The boat was insured against the total loss, salvage charges etc. The insurance policy has been marked as Ext.B-1. The laid up warrant clause states that the boat will have to be laid up from 1-6-1981 to 15-8-1981. Plaintiff says that he took up monsoon coverage for one month with effect from 12-6-1981 through Mr. Charles, the development officer. Plaintiff relies on Ext. A-5 to substantiate his contention that he had paid the amount to the Insurance Company for the monsoon coverage. Plaintiff contends that Charles came to his house on 12-6-1981 and apprised him of the desirability of having monsoon coverage, that he agreed to take monsoon coverage and that Rs.150/-was paid as premium. Ext. A-5 is the receipt obtained by the plaintiff. This is dated 13-6-1981. Defendants denied Ext. A-5 and wanted that they should be absolved from any liability of paying the amount to the plaintiff.

4. Main contention of the defendants is that during the relevant period the boat was not having monsoon coverage policy as alleged in the plaint. Defendants contended that as no separate policy was produced by the plaintiff evidencing monsoon coverage it cannot be said that there was any acceptance of the premium so as to conclude any contract between the parties to cover any monsoon coverage policy.

5. The crucial question to be considered is whether there was any concluded contract between the parties with regard to monsoon coverage policy. P.W.1 deposed that he paid the premium amount to Charles, the development officer and obtained Ext. A-5 receipt from the office of the defendants. Though P.W.1 stated in his evidence about what had transpired on 12-6-1981 there is no cross-examination on that aspect of the matter. There is not even any suggestion in cross-examination that what has been stated by P.W.1 with regard to what had transpired on 12-6-1981 is false. In the plaint itself sufficient details have been given with regard to Ext.A-5. In the written statement defendants only stated that there is no concluded contract to cover monsoon coverage and so they are not liable to the plaint claim. Nothing is stated denying the authenticity of Ext.A-5. In other words, defendants have not stated that Ext. A-5 is a bogus document. Nor do they have a case that it is invalid. For the first time, in evidence, defendants contended that Ext. A-5 is the result of foul play. Defendants have also no case that Charles was not a competent officer to. receive the premium. They have not adduced any evidence to prove that Ext. A-5 cannot be acted upon. It is also pertinent to note that the suit notice remained without an