PHILLIP A WATKINS Vs. LAXMINARAYEN BASDEODAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an exceptional ease. The plaintiff an Indian merchant bought gold bullion through the defendants in London in May 1922. The bullion was shipped on SS. Egypt and was lost on the sinking of that ship. But the defendants had insured the gold for its value and upwards, with the result that the plaintiff was repaid his entire cost of the purchase of the gold plus a certain additional sum. But he is not content with that. He says that the defendants ought to have insured not for say live or six per cent. above the value of the gold, as they in fact did, but for ton per cent. above that value. Accordingly, he claims the difference between this five per cent. and ten per cent.

(2.) This claim is based solely on an alleged custom of the bullion market in London : and it is thus pleaded in the plaint which, I am glad to notice, is concisely and clearly drawn, differing in that respect from most of the plaints I see in this Court. Para, 3 runs as follows :- In accord with the custom prevailing in such business, which custom is and was at all material times well-known to the defendants, the defendants ought to have insured the said bullion for 27,600, that is to say, for an amount ten per cent. over the value of the said order and charges. 4. The defendants in fact, contrary to the said custom and in breach of their duty to the plaintiff, insured the said bullion for 25,600 only. Accordingly, the plaintiff prays for a decree for Rs. 26,247-8-9 with interest from July 4, 1922, which sum represents from the particulars Exh D the equivalent of 2,000 at the current rate of exchange on July 4, 1922.

(3.) The plaintiff waited nearly three years to bring his suit. He has now brought it and has obtained the leave of the Chamber Judge under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent The defendants took out a summons to have that leave discharged. Mr. Justice Mirza has refused that leave and discharged the summons. The defendants appeal.