SIVADASAN C Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Two suits, namely, O.S. 23 of 1984, which was a suit for recovery of money and O.S. 134 of 1984, which too was a suit for recovery of a debt due to the Bank were jointly tried and disposed of by a common judgment. O.S. 23 of 1984 was dismissed and O.S. 134 of 1984 was decreed. O.S. 134 of 1984 was by the fourth Defendant in O.S. 23 of 1984 was directed against the Plaintiff and three others including the Insurance Company, who is the third Defendant in O.S.23 of 1984. O.S.23 of 1984 was to recover money on the basis of an insurance policy issued by the third Defendant in the suit. A.S. 647 of 1994 arises out of the judgment and decree in O.S.23 of 1984 and A.S.331 of 1996 arises from O.S. 134 of 1984. Since O.S.23 of 1984 was treated as the leading case, parties and facts are referred to as they are available in the said suit.

(2.) "Santhoshkumar", a fishing vessel owned by the Plaintiff in O.S.23 of 1984, hypothecated to the fourth Defendant Bank, and insured with the third Defendant, hit the bottom of the sea on 21-4-1981. The Plaintiff, on the terms of the insurance policy, laid a claim for money due on the policy. The Insurance Company repudiated the claim. That necessitated the suit by the owner of the vessel.

(3.) The defence of the Insurance Company was that the accident had not occurred as alleged by the Plaintiff and he has concealed the true version of the incident. According to them, as per the investigations conducted by them through various agencies, have yielded convincing reports that the story put forward by the Plaintiff is untrue. Since the version of the Plaintiff is not as it had occurred, they had denied their liability to pay any amount to the Plaintiff. The fourth Defendant Bank in the meanwhile instituted a suit for recovery of money due on the loan advanced by them for the fishing vessel, which was also hypothecated to them.