LAWS(SC)-2000-11-220

SYED MOHAMMED Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.

Decided On November 08, 2000
SYED MOHAMMED Appellant
V/S
NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises an interesting question of interpretation of clause 7 of the insurance policy, which is quoted herein:

(2.) The appellant instituted a civil suit against New India Assurance Company Ltd., the respondent, for the recovery of insurance money in terms of the policy. The appellant was the owner of the fishing vessel which, while anchored at the coast of Purakkad at Alleppey, drifted from that place, was lost and destroyed. The appellant informed the respondent. As the claim could not be settled on account of denial by the respondent, the aforesaid suit was filed. The trial court decreed the suit holding against the Insurance Company by rejecting its contention that the appellant had violated the aforesaid clause 7.

(3.) In appeal the question raised was, whether it was the obligation of the appellant under the policy to appoint watch and ward and whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, it could be said that compliance with the aforesaid clause was not made by the appellant. It is not in dispute that the vessel was anchored. The High Court in appeal set aside the findings recorded by the trial court by holding that the appellant had violated the warranty clause, as, at the relevant time, watch and ward was not present in the vessel in question. Hence the Insurance Company cannot be fastened with the liability as in view of this violation the respondent is discharged from the liability to pay the compensation.