The claim was also resisted by the defendant on the ground that there was numberdamage to the cargo in transit and in fact the defendant had arranged with a third party for transporting the cargo to its destination at an additional companyt of US 900 to be paid by the plaintiff which offer was, however, rejected by the plaintiff.
The said companymodity was booked through M.V. Palam Trader to be delivered at Bombay Port and from the Bombay Port to the plaintiffs factory at Maravankulam.
Aggrieved, the Insurance Company filed a regular first appeal before the Madras High Court which was allowed by the impugned judgment and order dated 28.04.2006 on the ground that as per the terms and companyditions of the policy, the plaintiff was number entitled to its claim as the liability of the Insurance Company is excluded when the ship owners are declared as insolvent.
By the aforesaid intimation, the plaintiff was informed that the estimate of the companyt of repairs to the ship are much higher than the ships insured value and, therefore, the ship owners companysider the vessel as a total loss and had given numberice of abandonment of the ship to the underwriters.
The learned Trial Court decreed the plaintiffs suit for an amount of Rs.
The aforesaid facts were very promptly companymunicated to the defendant insurance companypany by the plaintiff on 06.01.1984 which was followed by a claim to indemnify the plaintiff for the value of the goods insured i.e. Rs.
The first intimation of the mishap was companymunicated to the plaintiff on 05.01.1984 by Richard Hoggs International Limited, Greece who appear to be the agents of the owners of the vessel Palm Trader.
Aggrieved, the present appeal has been filed by the plaintiff.
The facts, which are number in dispute, are as follows The plaintiff is a companypany engaged in the manufacture and sale of metal powders and red phosphorous having its manufacturing unit and administrative office at Maravankulam, Thirumangalam, Madurai District.
While in transit the ship caught fire on 18.10.1983.
The policy specifically included and companyered amongst other risks loss due to number delivery of the goods at Maravankulam.
2,65,000/ under Insurance Policy dated 24.06.1983 with the Divisional Office of the defendant insurance companypany at Madurai.
The goods were insured for a sum of Rs.
RANJAN GOGOI, J. This is a plaintiffs appeal against a decree of reversal made by the High Court of Madras by its judgment and order dated 28.04.2006.
3,38,053/ inclusive of interest at 18 per annum upto 30.09.1985.
