Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Panaji, which dismissed Special Civil Suit No. 105/90. The appellant, a salvage company, had purchased a second-hand foreign vessel named 'Sayremar Dos' and obtained a marine hull insurance policy from the respondent, increasing the insured value to Rs. 60 lakhs in February 1988. On 05.06.1988, while the vessel was on charter to the Indian Navy at Karwar Harbour, it capsized. The appellant immediately informed the respondent, who appointed a surveyor. Salvage operations were commenced, and extensive correspondence ensued regarding the cause of the casualty and the salvage efforts. The appellant submitted a claim for total loss along with a notice of abandonment, which the respondent rejected. The appellant also claimed expenses under the sue and labour clause. The respondent repudiated the claim, citing insufficient proof of the cause and raising suspicions about the valuation. Consequently, the appellant filed a suit for Rs. 1,45,00,000, which was dismissed by the trial court. On appeal, the appellant argued that the vessel had grounded at Aguada sand bar, causing a broken sea chest and subsequent ingress of sea water—a peril of the sea covered by the policy. The appellant relied on the surveyor's report, crew testimony, and an expert opinion. The appellant also pressed for adverse inference against the respondent for not examining its investigator. The respondent contended that the cause was not established, that the salvage was voluntary, and that the surveyor had not determined the cause. The High Court heard the appeal but the provided text is incomplete, lacking the court's reasoning and final decision. The procedural history reflects that the appeal was filed after the suit's dismissal, and arguments were advanced on the factual and legal aspects of the claim.
Headnote
A) Insurance Law - Marine Insurance - Peril of the Sea - Marine Insurance Act, 1963 - The appellant contended that the ingress of sea water due to grounding constituted a peril of the sea covered under the insurance policy, and the respondent's surveyor had confirmed the cause; the respondent disputed the proximate cause and alleged lack of proof. The court's decision is not provided in the available excerpt. (Paras 3, 6-10) B) Insurance Law - Marine Insurance - Sue and Labour Clause - Marine Insurance Act, 1963 - The appellant claimed expenses for salvage operations undertaken after the casualty, asserting they were carried out at the surveyor's instance and with the respondent's knowledge. The respondent argued the operations were voluntary. The court's ruling is not available. (Paras 3, 6-11) C) Evidence Law - Adverse Inference - Burden of Proof - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - The appellant argued that the respondent's failure to examine its investigator Krishnamurthy should draw an adverse inference; the respondent had relied on an anonymous complaint. The court's decision on this point is not included. (Paras 9) D) Insurance Law - Surveyor's Report - Binding Nature - Marine Insurance Act, 1963 - The appellant contended that the surveyor's report appointed by the respondent is binding and cannot be disowned, while the respondent denied that the surveyor had opined on the cause of loss. The court's view remains unknown. (Paras 4, 11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the capsizing of the vessel 'Sayremar Dos' was caused by a peril of the sea covered under the marine insurance policy, entitling the appellant to claim for total loss and sue and labour expenses; and whether the respondent insurance company validly repudiated the claim.
Law Points
- Marine insurance
- total loss
- peril of the sea
- sue and labour expenses
- proximate cause
- adverse inference for non-examination of witness
- insurance policy terms
