The main legal point established in the judgment is that the period of limitation for filing a suit under Article 44(b) of the Limitation Act cannot be extended based on the actions of the surveyor or the insured, and the suit must be filed within the prescribed period from the date of repudiation by the insurer.

1. This civil suit has been filed, to pass a judgment and decree, against the Defendant:-

(a) directing the Defendant to pay the 1st Plaintiff a sum of Rs.1.75 crores towards the constructive total loss of barge Blue Marine-I.

(b) directing the Defendant to pay the 1st Plaintiff a sum of Rs.1.5 crores towards the salvage cost of barge Blue Marine-I.

(c) directing the Defendant to pay the 1st Plaintiff interest on the sum of Rs.3.25 crores at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization.

2. The suit has been filed by M/s. Blue Marine Logistics Private Limited, Chennai, and M/s. Blue Marine Logistics(s) Pte Limited, Singapore, against M/s. United India Insurance Company Limited, Chennai-2, with respect to a Marine Hull and Machinery Policy No.011500/22/10/01/00000005, which was issued by the Defendant, covering the period from 23.04.2010 to 22.04.2011.

3. The 2nd Plaintiff had made an application for issuance of a Marine Hull and Machinery Policy for a sum of Rs.1.75,00,000/-. The suit claim was for a direction to pay to the 1st Plaintiff a sum of Rs.1.75 crores towards constructive total loss of the barge Blue Marine-I and for a direction to pay a sum of Rs.1.5 crores towards the salvage cost of barge Blue Marine-I and for a further sum of Rs.3,25,00,000/- together with interest at 12% p.a. and also for costs of the suit.

4. The 2nd Plaintiff was the owner of the barge Blue Marine-I. With respect to the same, a Marine Hull and Machinery Policy referred to above had been entered into with the Defendant. A seaworthy certificate was issued to the Plaintiff on 4.5.2010 and a policy was thereafter issued by the Defendant and premium was also paid by the Plaintiffs. Loss covered were perils of the sea, rivers, lakes and other navigable water and also loss of or damage caused by accidents in loading, discharging, shifting cargo or fuel and also owing to the negligence of Masters, Officers, crew or pilots. Very unfortunately, the said barge Blue Marine-I sank on 28.10.2010 owing to combination of bad weather, shifting of cargo and perils of the sea. Thereafter, the Plaintiff reported the incident immediately on 1.11.2010 and also addressed a letter to the Deputy Conservator, Tuticorin Port Trust. Thereafter, there were again exchange of correspondences between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant. The Plaintiffs on the one hand sought release of Rs.35,36,630/- towards attempts for salvage the barge and the Defendant on the other hand sought clarifications on the reasons for sinking of the barge.

5. The Defendant had finally by letter dated 17.2.2012, which was filed as a document to the plaint, had claimed breach of policy conditions and treated the claim as repudiated. They further absolved themselves of any liability and closed the claim. To reiterate, this letter was dated 17.02.2012. The Plaintiffs thereafter on 2.3.2012 addressed a letter to the Defendant requesting a copy of the report of the surveyor. There were exchange of correspondences placing responsibility for the delay in salvaging and re-floating of the barge on each other. The Defendant thereafter addressed a second letter to the Plaintiffs and drew attention of the earlier letter dated 17.2.2012 and claimed that there was a breach of assured clauses and reiterated that they have been absolved of any liability to the Plaintiff under the policy of insurance and repudiated the claim.

6. The Defendant has filed a written statement and a preliminary point has been taken in the written statement that the suit, which had been filed on 3.6.2016, is barred by limitation. The Defendant relied on the averments of the Plaintiffs that the policy of insurance was repudiated on 17.2.2012 and reiterated on 12.3.2012. The Defendant, thereafter, stated that under Article 44(b) of the Limitation Act, the suit should have been instituted within t