Back
Kerala High Court
VARGHESE KALLIATH,L.MANOHARAN
J.M.F.Sea Foods, Alleppey - Appellant
Versus
National Insurance Co.Ltd. - Respondent
Decided On : 12/10/1991
Insurance - Fishing Vessel - Marine Insurance Act, 1963 (Act No. II of 1963) - S.2(a), S.3, S.55, S.57, S.58, S.68 - The court analyzed the facts and evidence presented in the case and concluded that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover the amount under the policy. The defendant contended that the loss of the vessel was not caused by an insured peril and that the plaintiffs had violated the warranty clause by failing to provide proper watch and ward to the insured vessel. The court found that the evidence presented by the plaintiffs was insufficient to prove that the loss of the vessel was caused by a peril insured against. The court also discussed the provisions of the Marine Insurance Act, including the definition of marine insurance, maritime perils, and the insurer's liability for proximately caused losses. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of the defendant.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiffs, owners of a fishing vessel named Seagull, filed a suit for money due under an insurance policy after the vessel went missing. The defendant contended that the loss of the vessel was not caused by an insured peril and that the plaintiffs had violated the warranty clause by failing to provide proper watch and ward to the insured vessel.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the plaintiffs was insufficient to prove that the loss of the vessel was caused by a peril insured against. The court also discussed the provisions of the Marine Insurance Act, including the definition of marine insurance, maritime perils, and the insurer's liability for proximately caused losses. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of the defendant.
Issues: The main issues revolved around whether the loss of the vessel was caused by an insured peril, whether the plaintiffs had violated the warranty clause by failing to provide proper watch and ward to the insured vessel, and the plaintiffs' entitlement to recover the amount under the policy.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of proving that the loss was caused by a peril insured against and discussed the burden of proof on the assured to show that the loss was proximately caused by a peril insured against. The court also considered the specific instances of the limits of the cover described in S. 55(1) of the Marine Insurance Act.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, ruling in favor of the defendant, and found that the plaintiffs were not entitled to recover the amount under the policy.
VARGHESE KALLIATH, J.:- Plaintiffs are the appellants. Suit was one for money due under an insurance policy. The brief facts are these :
2. First plaintiff is a partnership. Plaintiffs 2 to 4 are partners of first plaintiff. Plaintiffs are the owners of a fishing vessel named Seagull. Syndicate Bank was the financiers of the vessel and at the instance of the financiers, the vessel was insured with the defendant - the National Insurance Company - for Rs. 1,50,000/-. The defendant issued a policy.
3. Plaintiffs' case is that the vessel was anchored near Alleppey Port on 12-2-1980, after the day's fishing operation. On 13-2-1980, the crew of the vessel wanted to take the vessel for fishing. They found the vessel missing and they immediately reported the matter to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs informed this matter to the defendant, Police and Port Authorities on 13-2-1980. It is alleged that the plaintiffs made extensive enquiries at Quilon, Thottappally, Cochin etc. Plaintiffs came to know late in the evening of 13-2-1980 that some country boats fishermen at Kattoor have seen the sinking of plaintiffs' boat at about 5 kms. away from the sea shore at 8 a.m. The fishermen also brought some wooden parts, plastic tins etc. which they found floating on the spot, where the boat sank. Plaintiffs were able to identify the said items as that of their missing vessel and information was given to the Insurance Company, Police, Port Authorities and the Bank. Police took custody of the materials brought by the country craft fishermen.
4. On the basis of the information, one Shri T. S. Ramaswamy - the Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessor -wrote a letter to the first plaintiff on 19-2-1980, calling for production of certain documents, viz., the claim bill in triplicate, bills and vouchers to prove the valuation of the vessel, photograph of the vessel and other similar documents, with a copy of the letter to the defendant-Company. Plaintiffs submitted that all the documents were sent on 25-2-1980 to the Surveyor. The Surveyor again called for the production of some more documents and that was also complied with by the plaintiffs on 8-4-1980. Plaintiffs wanted an expeditious settlement of the claim.
5. On 9-10-1980, plaintiffs received a letter from the Security and Detective Bureau Ltd., Madras, to the effect that the said Bureau has been authorised by the Deputy Manager to the Southern Regional Office of the defendant-Company, Madras to enquire into the claim of the first plaintiff, in respect of their mechanised fishing vessel Seagull, and since certain clarifications were required to be sought from the concerned persons. Mr. J. A. Harris, Chief Investigator of the Bureau would be visiting the office of the first plaintiff on 22-10-1980. It is the further case of the plaintiffs that as per the above directions, Shri Harris visited the spot on the said date and made detailed enquiries, and in spite of all these, nothing was heard from the defendant-Company regarding the settlement of the plaintiffs's claim. So, the plaintiffs wrote to the Head Office, Regional Office, Divisional Office and the Branch Office of the defendant-Company for a speedy disposal of their claim. Plaintiffs received no response. So, the plaintiffs caused a notice to be issued through their lawyer, dated 12-12-1980, to the defendant with copies to the Company's Divisional Office, and Regional Office. Plaintiffs claimed an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards the amount due under the policy, Rs.1, 300/-towards expenses incurred for salvaging the vessel and Rs. 18,666.60 as interest payable to the Bank on account of the non-settlement of the claim in time.
6. Defendant replied on 27-12-1980 that the Company has not received the final investigation report and that they will be able to process the claim only after getting the final investigation report. Plaintiffs reminded the defendant by their letters dated 3-2-1981 and 20-11-1981. On 8-2-1982, defendant-Company wanted the repo
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
