MAMAD IBRAHIM Vs. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANYLIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a judgment and decree dated 31st July, 1999 passed by the learned 4th Jt. Civil Judge, (S.D.), Jamnagar in Special Civil Suit No. 184 of 1989. The present appellants and Gujarat Maritime Board filed above mentioned Special Civil Suit claiming sum of Rs.20,48,000.00 from the respondent No.1 herein ? United India Insurance Company Limited. Briefly stated, the facts are as follows:

(2.) THE appellants were engaged in the business of operating merchandised vessels for shipping. THEy were doing such business in the name and style of "Shri Ibrahim Haji Ahmed & Sons?. THE appellants are sons of late Shri Ibrahim Haji Ahmed who expired on 9.1.1982. During his life time, he owned a vessel called "Shakina Al Ibrahim? (Hereinafter to be referred to as "the vessel"). Such vessel was built by the deceased with the financial aid from the Government. Such vessel was hypothecated with the Gujarat Maritime Board . THE vessel was insured by the defendant ? Insurance Company. After the death of late Ibrahim Haji Ahmed, his sons i.e. the appellants become owners of the vessel and continued to do the business in the same field through such vessel. THEy also from time to time insured the vessel with the same insurance company. Insurance policy however expired on 9.11.1984. When the question of renewal of the insurance arose, it appears that the insurance company insisted on getting the vessel revalued. It is not in dispute that the valuer's report was available only on 8.1.1985. On 8.1.1985 itself, the plaintiffs paid to the insurance company premium for the insurance as per the valuation suggested by the valuer in his report dated 8.1.1985. Insurance cover thus commenced from 8.1.1985. It was the case of the plaintiffs that the vessel met with an accident on 10.1.1985, it caught fire and was taken in total loss. When the claim was lodged by the plaintiffs with the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company refused to pay the damages on the ground that the accident had actually taken place on 5.1.1985, on which date, there was no insurance cover provided by the company.

(3.) FINDINGS of the trial court on such issues were as follows: 1.Negative. 2.Affirmative. 3.Negative. 4.Affirmative. 5.Affirmative. 6.Undecided. 7.Negative. 8.Negative. 9.Negative. 10.As per final order.