{"id":73920,"date":"2006-12-05T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-12-04T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peacock-plywood-pvt-ltd-vs-the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-on-5-december-2006"},"modified":"2017-05-05T03:07:38","modified_gmt":"2017-05-04T21:37:38","slug":"ms-peacock-plywood-pvt-ltd-vs-the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-on-5-december-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peacock-plywood-pvt-ltd-vs-the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-on-5-december-2006","title":{"rendered":"M\/S. Peacock Plywood Pvt. Ltd vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd on 5 December, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
M\/S. Peacock Plywood Pvt. Ltd vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd on 5 December, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: S.B. Sinha<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Dalveer Bhandari<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (civil)  5608 of 2006\n\nPETITIONER:\nM\/s. Peacock Plywood Pvt. Ltd.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nThe Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/12\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. Sinha & Dalveer Bhandari\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T
\n[Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 7392-7393 of 2005]<\/p>\n
S.B. SINHA, J :\n<\/p>\n
 \tLeave granted.\n<\/p>\n
 \tInterpretation of a policy of marine insurance entered into by and
\nbetween the parties herein covering goods in transit is in question in this
\nappeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 16th December, 2004
\npassed by the High Court of Calcutta in APO No. 363 of 2000 whereby and
\nwhereunder the appeal preferred by Respondent  Insurance Company
\nherein from a judgment and order dated 3rd December, 1999 passed in C.S.
\nNo. 480 of 1992 passed by a learned Single Judge of the said Court was
\nallowed.\n<\/p>\n
 \tAppellant herein agreed to purchase 4000 cu. mt. of ‘Sabha Log’
\n(logs) at a total price of US $6,00,000\/- from a Malaysian firm.  474 pieces
\nof logs were loaded on a vessel known as ‘Indera Pertama’ (vessel) at the
\nport of Western Sabah, Malaysia for their delivery at Calcutta.  The ship left
\nthe Malaysian Port with cargo on 16th February, 1988.  The logs were
\ninsured by Appellant with Respondent  Insurance Company for a sum of
\nRs. 39,90,122\/- against the peril and\/ or risk of non-delivery of said goods.
\nThe policy contained Institute Cargo Clause (C).  It also expressly included
\nthe risk of non-delivery of even single piece of log.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe relevant clauses of the said contract are as under:
\n“Institute Cargo Clause (C)
\nRisks covered:\n<\/p>\n
1.\tThis insurance covers, except as provided in
\nClauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 below,
\n1.1\t***
\n1.1.1\t***
\n1.1.2\tvessel or craft being stranded grounded,
\nsunk or capsized”\n<\/p>\n
***      ***      ***      ***      ***      ***<\/p>\n
 \tThe insurance contract contained exclusion clauses, some of which
\nare as under:<\/p>\n
“4. In no case shall this insurance cover
\n***      ***      ***      ***      ***      ***
\n4.6 loss, damage or expense arising from
\ninsolvency or financial default of the owners,
\nmanagers, chaterers or operators of the vessel.\n<\/p>\n
***      ***      ***      ***      ***      ***
\n5.1 In no case shall this insurance cover loss
\ndamage or expense arising from unseaworthiness
\nof vessel or craft;\n<\/p>\n
Unfitness of vessel craft conveyance container or
\nlift-van for the sale carriage of the subject-matter
\ninsured.\n<\/p>\n
Where the assured or their servants are privy to
\nsuch unseaworthiness or unfitness, at the time the
\nsubject-matter insured is loaded therein.\n<\/p>\n
***      ***      ***      ***      ***      ***\n<\/p>\n
6. In no case shall this insurance cover loss,
\ndamage or expenses caused by
\n***      ***      ***      ***      ***      ***
\n6.2 capture, seizure, arrest, restraint or detainment
\nand the consequences thereof or any attempt
\nthereat;”\n<\/p>\n
***      ***      ***      ***      ***      ***
\n8.3 This insurance shall remain in force (subject to
\ntermination as provided for above and to the
\nprovisions for clause 9 below) during delay
\nbeyond the control of the Assured, any deviation,
\nforced discharge, re-shipment or trans-shipment
\nand during any variation of the adventure arising
\nfrom the exercise of a liberty granted to
\nshipowners or charterers under the contract of
\naffreightment.\n<\/p>\n
9. If owing to circumstances beyond the control of
\nthe Assured either the contract of carriage is
\nterminated at a port or place other than the
\ndestination named therein or the transit is
\notherwise terminated before delivery of the goods
\nas provided for in clause 8 above, then this
\ninsurance shall also terminate unless prompt notice
\nis given to the Underwriters and continuation of
\ncover is requested when the insurance shall remain
\nin force, subject to an additional premium if
\nrequired by the Underwriters, either
\n***      ***      ***      ***      ***      ***
\n9.2 if the goods are forwarded within the said
\nperiod of 60 days (or any agreed extension therein)
\nto the destination named herein or to any other
\ndestination, until terminated in accordance with the
\nprovisions of clause 8 above.\n<\/p>\n
***      ***      ***      ***      ***      ***\n<\/p>\n
13. No claim for Constructive Total Loss shall be
\nrecoverable hereunder unless the subject-matter
\ninsured is reasonably abandoned either on account
\nof its actual total loss appearing to be unavoidable
\nor because the cost of recovering, reconditioning
\nand forwarding the subject-matter to the
\ndestination to which it is insured would exceed its
\nvalue on arrival.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tAn extended warranty clause was endorsed in the policy wherefor
\nadditional premium was paid in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
“Notwithstanding anything contained herein to the
\ncontrary, it is hereby declared and agreed that the
\ncoverage granted under the within mentioned
\npolicy be extended to include the risks of “Theft,
\nPilferage and Non-Delivery” as well as “War and
\nS.R.C.C.” as per attached clause 6 & 11.  In
\nconsequence above extension of risks, an
\nadditional premium of Rs. 1,496\/- is hereby
\ncharged to the insured.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe ship developed engine troubles and was held up at Singapore Port
\ntill 13th March, 1988.  It sailed for Port of Calcutta thereafter.  It was,
\nhowever, immobilised on reaching high sea at Anadamans.  It underwent
\nrepairs but eventually returned back to Malaysia.  Indisputably, Appellant
\nkept Respondent  Insurance Company informed all through.  While at
\nMalaysian Port, the ship was arrested at the instance of one Gobsobs, one of
\nthe owners of the cargo in May, 1988.  Appellant filed a caveat in the said
\nproceedings with a view to take appropriate steps to have the logs belonging
\nto it released.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe Malaysian Court discharged the order of arrest on 30th December,
\n1988 and the ship eventually proceeded again towards Singapore.  At
\nSingapore, the ship became stranded.  On 3rd January, 1989, it offloaded its
\ncargo and did not resume its journey.  Appellant, however, with a view to
\nminimise its loss due to non-delivery, took steps to recover the cargo or its
\nvalue and on an application filed by it, the High Court of the Republic of
\nSingapore in suit No. 711 of 1989 passed an order on 9th June, 1989
\nallowing the sale of the cargo.  Admittedly, Appellant had received a sum of
\nRs. 20,01,743.53 out of the sale proceeds.\n<\/p>\n
 \tA claim by way of constructive total loss was raised by Appellant
\nwith the Insurer in terms of its letter dated 12th August, 1989 which was
\nrepudiated by Respondent in terms of its letter dated 1st April, 1991.  The
\nsaid stand was reiterated by it in terms of a letter dated 22nd October, 1991.\n<\/p>\n
 \tAppellant filed a suit before the original side of the Calcutta High
\nCourt which was marked as CS No. 480 of 1992 praying for a decree for a
\nsum of Rs. 49,48,407\/- with interest.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe Singapore Court, however, during pendency of the said suit on or
\nabout 19th May, 1995 released the money in favour of Appellant.  The said
\nsum being 20,01,740.53 was received by it at the then prevailing exchange
\nrate on 22nd June, 1995.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe learned Single Judge in the suit inter alia framed the following
\nissues:\n<\/p>\n
“1.\tIs the plaintiff the owner of the subject
\ngoods?\n<\/p>\n
***\t\t***\t\t***
\n2(b)\tWas there any constructive total loss as
\nalleged in paragraph 8 of the plaint?\n<\/p>\n
3.\tIs the suit barred by the laws of limitation?\n<\/p>\n
4.\tTo what relief, if any, is the plaintiff
\nentitled?”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn regard to Issue No. 1, the learned Judge opined:\n<\/p>\n
“It follows therefore that the said Clause 6 cannot
\nbe set up by the defendant against the plaintiff’s
\nclaim on account of non-delivery i.e. the peril
\ninsured against.  Further in any event I am satisfied
\non the evidence adduced at the trial that the
\nplaintiff had given prompt notice of the
\ntermination of the voyage at the Singapore Port but
\nthe defendant did not ask for payment of additions,
\npremium for continuation of the said policy.  The
\ndefendant therefore must be considered to have
\nacquiesced in the continuation of the said policy at
\nany rate it must be taken to have waived the
\ncondition prescribed in the said clause.  I,
\ntherefore, answer this issue in the affirmative.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tSo far as Issue No. 2(b) is concerned, the learned Judge noticed the
\ndefinition of ‘constructive total loss’ as contained in Section 60 of the
\nMarine Insurance Act, 1963 and opined:\n<\/p>\n
“There is no “express provisions” to the contrary
\nin the said policy and as such it cannot be disputed
\nthat there has been constructive total loss of the
\nsaid consignment.  There is evidence on record to
\nshow that the cost of bringing down the said
\nconsignment to the Calcutta Port from the
\nSingapore Port would be more than it is actual cost
\n(see exhibit ‘S’ supra).  I, therefore, here (sic) that
\nthis issue should be answered in the affirmative.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tAs regards, Issue No. 3, the learned Judge noticed the Respondent’s
\ncontention which is in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
“Plaintiff’s claim was wrongful and not
\nmaintaining and the same was repudiated by this
\ndefendant’s letter dated April 1, 1991 and October
\n22, 1991.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn regard to the said contention, it opined that the said repudiation was
\nmade on 1st April, 1991 and 22nd October, 1991.\n<\/p>\n
 \tAs regards Issue No. 4, it was held that the suit was within limitation.\n<\/p>\n
 \tKeeping in view the fact that Appellant had received a sum of Rs.
\n20,01,740.53, it was opined that it was entitled only to a sum of Rs.
\n8,48,259.47 and the suit was decreed therefor together with simple interest at
\nthe rate of 18% per annum.\n<\/p>\n
 \tAggrieved thereby, Respondent filed an intra-court appeal before a
\nDivision Bench of the said High Court which was marked as APD No. 363
\nof 2000.  The High Court held that the repudiation of claim having been
\nmade on 8th July, 1988, subsequent correspondences having been marked as
\n‘without prejudice’, the same would not amount to extension of period of
\nlimitation as the suit was filed on 7th August, 1992.  In regard to the
\ncorrespondences passed between the parties, it was opined:\n<\/p>\n
“The conduct of the defendant\/appellant in this
\nregard clearly indicates that in order to help tracing
\nout the situation, the defendant had extended its
\ngood office and that too without prejudice. Such a
\ngesture does not seem to extend the period of
\nlimitation by admission or otherwise when on the
\nface of Exhibit 5 (8th July, 1988), the defendant
\nhad already declined\/denied its liability”\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt was furthermore held that having regard to Clause 9 of the policy,
\nthe contract of carriage stood terminated.  On merit of the matter, the court,
\non the question as to whether the claim was established, held that the same
\nhad not been quantified in the absence of any definite proof with regard to
\nthe amount to be ascertained as claimable.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn regard to the question as to whether the policy was an all risk
\npolicy, the Division Bench opined that the policy was not an all risk policy
\nand the exclusion clause contained in Clause 4.6 would operate.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn regard to the question of constructive total loss, keeping in view the
\nfact that the goods were in existence, the court purported to have relied upon
\nMiddows v. Robertson [(1940) 67 Lloyd’s Law Report 484] opining:\n<\/p>\n
“The unseaworthiness would not come within
\nthe peril of the insured against as was held in
\nWadsworth Lighterage Co. Ltd. (supra). The
\nunseaworthiness of the vessel is a ground excluded
\nin the policy as referred to hereinbefore. There is
\nno pleading or any attempt to prove that the
\nplaintiff or its servant was not privy to the
\nunseaworthiness of the vessel at the time of
\nloading.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt was held:\n<\/p>\n
“6.15 If in a situation, loss occurs due to
\ncombination of more than one factors then if one
\nfactor is excluded the claim of the plaintiff cannot
\nsucceed. In the instant case, the proximate cause
\nwas delay and defaults committed by the plaintiff
\nas mentioned aforesaid. Hence, the plaintiffs claim
\nmust fail.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn regard to the issue of loss caused by measures taken by Appellant
\nto avert or minimize the effect of an insured period, it was opined that as the
\nship was detained due to unseaworthiness which is exclusionary clause the
\nplaintiff cannot succeed in its claim.  It was further opined that the insurance
\nwas hit by ‘sue and labour clause’ and Appellant has not been able to
\ndischarge its burden.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn regard to warehouse to warehouse loss, it was held that the policy
\ndid not include the risk of loading the goods in vessel which were
\nunseaworthiness.  It being a maritime industry peril, the enforcement would
\nbe against the exclusion clause contained in Clause 5.1.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt was concluded:\n<\/p>\n
“10. For all these reasons, we are of the view (1)
\nthat because of the fact of denial by the insurer by
\nits letter dated 8th July, 1988 (Ext. 5) coupled with
\nthe termination of the policy and its non-extension
\nafter the Cargo Safety Construction Certificate and
\nLoad Line Certificate expired on 15th July, 1988
\nand on account of plaintiff’s failure to discharge its
\nobligation either to obtain re-shipment of the
\ngoods soon thereafter and the failure to take a
\ndecision to sell the goods locally immediately and
\nfiling of the suit after 7th August, 1992 clearly
\nindicates that the claim of the plaintiff was barred
\nby limitation and the suit ought to have been
\ndismissed; (2) the plaintiff has not been able to
\nprove that he had taken all steps to avoid the delay;
\n(3) the policy was not an all risk policy but was
\ncircumscribed and restricted by reason of the
\nInstitute Cargo Clause (c) containing the restrictive
\nclauses enumerated in paragraph 5 hereinbefore;
\n(4) the plaintiff has not been able to establish its
\nclaim by discharging the burden lay upon it to
\nsustain the claim on merit and that the goods were
\nnot lost when the claim was lodged; (5) the
\nplaintiff has not been able to prove constructive
\nloss by reason of abandonment; (6) that by reason
\nof Sections 20 and 32 of the Evidence Act, it was
\nproved that the goods were still in existence and
\nwere in good condition; and (7) that the loss
\ncannot be ascribed to any peril insured as
\ndiscussed hereinbefore.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tMr. Prasenjit Keswani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
\nAppellant, would submit that the Division Bench of the High Court
\ncommitted a serious error in arriving at its conclusions insofar as it failed to
\ntake into consideration that once the goods were stranded, it was covered by
\nthe terms of extended insurance policy which would include non-delivery
\nfor any reason whatsoever.  Non-delivery of goods, the learned counsel
\nurged, would bring within its fold constructive total loss as there is no
\nserious dispute in regard to the fact that cost of transportation of goods from
\nSingapore to Calcutta was much higher than the actual costs of the goods.
\nThe burden of proof to show that the exclusionary clauses are attracted being
\non the insurer and such burden having not been discharged the decision of
\nthe Division Bench should not be upheld.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt was furthermore pointed out that neither any case of applicability of
\nthe exclusion clauses was made in the written statement nor any issue was
\nraised.  In any event, in case of an ambiguity, a contract of insurance should
\nbe construed in favour of the insured.  Reliance in this behalf has been
\nplaced on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pushpalaya Printers<\/a> [(2004) 3
\nSCC 694].\n<\/p>\n
 \tMr. Vishnu Mehra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
\nRespondent, on the other hand, would submit that Institute Cargo Clause (C)
\ncontained restrictive clauses.  Drawing our attention to Section 78 of the
\nMarine Insurance Act, he would submit that the Division Bench of the High
\nCourt has rightly construed the words ‘any peril’.  It was submitted that
\nhaving regard to Sub-section (4) of Section 78 of the Marine Insurance Act,
\nthe insured had a duty to minimize the loss and only in that view of the
\nmatter, Respondent extended its assistance which cannot be said to be an
\nadmission of its liability.  It was urged that the insurance policy would cover
\nonly the perils mentioned therein and no case has been made out that the
\nvessel was stranded.\n<\/p>\n
 \tHaving regard to Clause No. 9 of the policy, it was contended that the
\ncontract became terminated and there being no request for continuation of
\nthe contract, it came to an end in December, 1988 when it was stranded at
\nSingapore.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn regard to claim of Appellant on constructive total loss, it was
\nsubmitted that the contract came to an end in December, 1988 and, thus, the
\ncase would come within the purview of Section 60 of the Marine Insurance
\nAct.  Constructive total loss, it was urged, must be commensurate with
\nactual total loss, but, no case has been made out that it was a case of actual
\ntotal loss as goods were existing and they were sold and the insured,
\ntherefore, have never been deprived of possession of the entire goods.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt was further submitted that even if the broad meaning is given to the
\nterm ‘stranded’, the insured having not been deprived of the possession of
\nthe goods, no loss occurred.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe questions which arise for consideration before us are:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\tWhether the suit was barred by limitation.\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\tWhether the policy of insurance was an all risk policy.\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tWhether the policy covered constructive total loss.\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\tWhether the exclusion clauses in the policy are applicable in the
\nfacts of this case so as to repudiate the claim of Appellant.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn the plaint it was stated:\n<\/p>\n
“13. By letters dated April 1, 1991 and October 22,
\n1991 the defendant wrongfully rejected the claim
\nof the plaintiff.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn response to the said contentions, Respondent averred:\n<\/p>\n
“15. With reference to paragraph 13 of the plaint
\nthis defendant denies that this defendant has
\nwrongfully rejected the claim of the plaintiff.
\nPlaintiff’s claim was wrongfully and not
\nmaintainable and the same was repudiated by this
\ndefendant’s letters dated April 1, 1991 and October
\n22, 1991.  This defendant states that the contents
\nof the said two letters are true and correct.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tAppellant lodged its claim on 24th June, 1988.  On or about 8th July,
\n1988, the Insurance Company purported to have repudiated the claim
\nstating:\n<\/p>\n
“We acknowledge receipt of your letter of 24th
\nultimo and note what you write.  We would like to
\ninvite your attention to our letter dated 3.6.88,
\nwherein requested you to take sincere and serious
\nefforts to get the cargo landed at Calcutta Port
\nbefore 11.7.88 even if necessary, by taking
\nappropriate action that may be deemed fit.  We
\nalso advised you to utilize the assistance of our
\nSingapore Office, as and when necessary.\n<\/p>\n
It is not clear from your letter under reference what
\nsteps have been taken to compel the ship owners to
\ndeliver the cargo at Calcutta Port as lading issued
\nby them.\n<\/p>\n
Please note that as the vessel loaded with full
\ncargo has been located the question of ‘Non-
\ndelivery’ does not arise and no claim will be
\nadmissible by the underwriters where the existence
\nof the goods is there.  As per the terms and
\nconditions of Marine Insurance Policy “Delay” is
\nthe excluded peril which note.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tFrom a perusal of the said letter, it is evident that the only ground on
\nwhich the claim of Appellant was not accepted was that the question of any
\n‘Non-delivery” did not arise as the cargo had been in existence.  Other
\ncontentions of Appellant in the said letter had not been repudiated.\n<\/p>\n
 \tOn or about 11th August, 1988, Appellant herein served a notice of
\nabandonment inter alia stating:\n<\/p>\n
“In the circumstances of the case, we are to give
\nyou this Notice of abandonment of the
\nconsignments to you and you are at liberty to take
\npossession of the subject matters insured.\n<\/p>\n
In this connection, we may state that in a similar
\ncase in British & Foreign Marine Insurance
\nCompany Limited vs. Sanday & Another it was
\nheld that “Consequent on the adventure being
\nfrustrated by an insured peril the assured may
\nabandon it and rever for a constructive total loss on
\nthe ground that the actual loss of the subject matter
\ninsured appears to be unavoidable, even though the
\ngoods themselves are uninjured.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt was stated:\n<\/p>\n
“We lodged our formal claim with the shipowners
\nat Kuala Lumpur as required under the Policy and
\ncopy of the same was endorsed to you.  The
\nshipowners have not acknowledged our claim
\nnotice and they have purposely kept silent.
\nHowever, on any recovery proceedings we would
\nrender our full assistance even by signing the
\nplaint etc.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tRespondent admittedly got a survey conducted in March, 1989.  Even
\nin December, 1988, the ship had proceeded towards Singapore but only upon
\nreaching the port of Singapore in January, 1989, the cargo was offloaded.  A
\nfinding of fact has been arrived at by the learned Single Judge that the ship
\ndid not proceed due to its unseaworthiness.  It is not in question.\n<\/p>\n
 \tWe have noticed hereinbefore that indisputably Appellant on its own
\nas also at the behest of Respondent took steps for realisation of cargo to the
\nextent possible.  It moved the Singapore High Court for sale of the cargo.  It
\nhad also opposed the prayer of arrest of ship before a Malaysian Court.
\nRespondent itself contended that Appellant made a pre-mature claim of
\nconstructive total loss.  Having said so, it could not have raised a plea of
\nlimitation.\n<\/p>\n
 \tOur attention has been drawn to correspondences between the parties.
\nIn response to the Appellant’s letter dated 11th August, 1988, Respondent in
\nits letter dated 2nd September, 1988 stated that the settlement of claim would
\nbe considered strictly in terms of the policy.  It was, however, stated:\n<\/p>\n
“So that the goods are not sold at the interest of
\nthe one consignee alone who has already taken
\naction in Kuala Lumpur Court, we would without
\nprejudice strongly recommend in your interest that
\naction be taken by you as consignees and owners
\nof the goods in proper Court at Kuala Lumpur to
\ncompel the shipowners to complete the voyage and
\nmeantime, ‘restraint order’ should also be secured
\nto protect your interest as well alongwith the other
\ninterested Consignee so that no single or arbitrary
\naction is taken by the Court jeopardizing your
\nother consignee’s interest.\n<\/p>\n
We may here draw your attention that in terms of
\nthe Loss Minimisation Clause in the Policy, you
\nare in duty bound to see that all protective
\nmeasures are taken adequately against Carriers.\n<\/p>\n
However, settlement of the claim under the policy
\nwould be considered only strictly in terms and
\nconditions of the policy of insurance.  This is
\nwithout prejudice.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tThere had been no repudiation even at that stage.  It was only when
\nthe ship could not leave the Singapore Port due to unseaworthiness, a claim
\nof constructive total loss was made.  Terms of the policy would indisputably
\nhave to be invoked for determining the rival clauses.  But, it is one thing to
\nsay that the claim was barred by limitation or the exclusionary clauses would
\napply; but it is another thing to say that the question of invoking the said
\nclause did not arise in terms of the contract of insurance.\n<\/p>\n
 \tOnly because the expression “without prejudice” was mentioned, the
\nsame, in our opinion, by itself was not sufficient and would not curtail the
\nright of the insured to which it was otherwise entitled to.  The expression
\n“without prejudice” may have to be construed in the context in which it is
\nused.  If the purpose for which it is used is accomplished, no legitimate
\nclaim can be allowed to be defeated thereby.  [See Cutts v. Head and
\nAnother, (1984) 2 WLR 349 and Rush & Tompkins Ltd v. Greater London
\nCouncil and another, (1988) 1 All ER 549]<\/p>\n
 \tIn Phipson on Evidence, Sixteenth Edition, pages 655-657, it is stated:\n<\/p>\n
“Without prejudice privilege is seen as a form of
\nprivilege and usually treated as such.  It does not,
\nhowever, have the same attributes as the law of
\nprivilege.  Privilege can be waived at the behest of
\nthe party entitled to the privilege.  Without
\nprejudice privilege can only normally be waived
\nwith the consent of both parties to the
\ncorrespondence.  Whilst the rule in privilege is
\n“once privileged, always privileged”, the rule for
\nwithout prejudice is less straightforward, and at
\nleast in three party cases, this will not always be
\nthe position.  A third distinction is that in the three
\nparty situation, which is not governed by contract,
\nwithout prejudice documents are only protected in
\ncircumstances where a public policy justification
\ncan be provided, namely where the issue is
\nwhether admissions were made.  That is not a
\nprinciple applicable in the law of privilege.
\nFourthly, whereas legal professional privilege is a
\nsubstantive right, without prejudice privilege is
\ngenerally a rule of admissibility, either based on a
\ncontractual, or implied contractual right, or on
\npublic policy.  This may have consequences
\nrelevant to proper law issues.  Finally, if a party
\ncomes into possession of a privileged document,
\nsubject to equitable relief for breach of confidence,
\nthere is no reason why he should not use it and it
\nwill be admissible in evidence.  But, the mere fact
\nthat a party has a without prejudice document does
\nnot entitle him to use it without the consent of the
\nother party.\n<\/p>\n
(c)\tWhen is correspondence treated as within
\nthe rule?\n<\/p>\n
The first question is to determine what
\ncommunications attract without prejudice
\nprivilege.  The second stage is to consider when
\nthe court will, nevertheless, admit such
\ncommunications.\n<\/p>\n
 \tCorrespondence will only be protected by
\nwithout prejudice privilege if it is written for the
\npurpose of a genuine attempt to compromise a
\ndispute between the parties.  It is not a
\nprecondition that the correspondence bears the
\nheading without prejudice.  If it is clear from the
\nsurrounding circumstances that the parties were
\nseeking to compromise the action, evidence of the
\ncontent of those negotiations will, as a general
\nrule, not be admissible.  The converse is that there
\nare some circumstances in which the words are
\nused but where the documents do not attract
\nwithout prejudice privilege.  This may be because
\nalthough the words without prejudice were used,
\nthe negotiations were not for the purpose of a
\ngenuine attempt to settle the dispute.  The most
\nobvious cases are first, where the party writing was
\nnot involved in genuine settlement negotiations,
\nand secondly, where although the words were
\nused, they were used in circumstances which had
\nnothing to do with negotiations.  Surveyors
\nreports, for example, are sometimes headed
\nwithout prejudice, although they have nothing to
\ndo with negotiations.  The third case is, where the
\nwords are used in a completely different sense.
\nThus, in Council of Peterborough v. Mancetter
\nDevelopments, the documentation was admissible
\nbecause in context the words meant “without
\nprejudice to an alternative right and without
\nconcession to the other application” and had
\nnothing to do with settlement.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThere are circumstances in which the
\ncorrespondence is initiated with a view to
\nsettlement but the parties do not intend that the
\ncorrespondence should be without prejudice.  It
\nmay be that the parties positively want any
\nsubsequent court to see the correspondence and
\nalways had in mind that it should be open
\ncorrespondence.  It may be a nice point whether
\nnegotiations at which no one mentioned the words
\n“without prejudice” should be admitted in
\nevidence: for example at an early meeting between
\nthe parties when the dispute first developed.  There
\nis no easy rule here.  On the other hand, even when
\na letter is sent as the “opening shot” in
\nnegotiations, and is not preceded by any previous
\ncorrespondence, it may be without prejudice.
\nThere are authorities in both directions on this and
\nit will depend on the facts.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIt has been said that if one is seeking to
\nchange the basis of the correspondence from
\nwithout prejudice to open it is incumbent on that
\nperson to make the change clear, although that
\nmay be more a pointer than a rule.  There is no
\nreason why every letter for which without
\nprejudice is claimed should contain an offer or
\nconsideration of an offer, so long as the without
\nprejudice correspondence is part of a body of
\nnegotiation correspondence.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe actual repudiation was made on 1st April, 1991 and, thus, the suit
\nhaving been filed on 7th August, 1992 was within the period of limitation in
\nterms of Article 44 of the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963,
\nthe relevant portion whereof is as under:\n<\/p>\n
“Description of suit
\nPeriod of
\nlimitation
\nTime from which period
\nbeings to run
\n44<\/span><\/p>\n
(a)     ***<\/p>\n
(b)     On a policy of
\ninsurance when  the
\nsum insured is payable
\nafter proof of the loss
\nhas been given to or
\nreceived by the
\ninsurers.\n<\/p>\n
Three years<\/p>\n
The   date   of  the
\noccurrence causing the loss,
\nor where the claim on the
\npolicy is denied, either
\npartly  or  wholly, the date
\nof such denial.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tWhen the termination of the contract of insurance has actually taken
\nplace is essentially a question of fact.  An insurance policy is to be construed
\nin its entirety.  A marine insurance policy does not come to an end only
\nbecause the ship became stranded at a port.\n<\/p>\n
 \tTermination of the transit before delivery of goods is subject to
\nClause 8 of the contract.  The duration of contract is mentioned in Clause 8
\nof the contract of insurance.  It commences from the time the goods leave
\nthe warehouse or other contingencies mentioned therein.  It terminates:\n<\/p>\n
(i)\ton delivery to the Consignees or other final warehouse;\n<\/p>\n
(ii)\ton delivery to any other warehouse or place of storage;\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\tfor storage other than in the ordinary course of transit; or\n<\/p>\n
(iv)\tfor allocation or distribution or on the expiry of 60 days after
\ncompletion of discharge overside of the goods insured from the
\noversea vessel at any final port of discharge.\n<\/p>\n
 \tNone of the aforementioned clauses are attracted in the facts and
\ncircumstances of the present case.\n<\/p>\n
 \tClause 8.3, subject of course to the operation of other provisions
\ncontained in Clause 8 as also the provisions contained in Clause 9, remains
\nin force during delay beyond the control of the assured, any deviation,
\nforced discharge, reshipment or transshipment and during variation of the
\nadventure arising from the exercise of a liberty granted to ship owners or
\ncharterers under the contract of affreightment.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe Division Bench of the High Court committed an error in holding
\nthat the insurance policy stood terminated after June\/ July, 1988 in terms of
\nclause 9 of the policy when the contract of carriage had terminated on
\naccount of the unseaworthiness of the ship.  Even Respondent had not made
\nout any case to the said effect in the pleadings.  If the contract of insurance
\ndid not terminate on its own, as was wrongly opined by the Division Bench
\nof the High Court, the question of any request for its extension did not arise.\n<\/p>\n
 \tUndoubtedly, the contract of insurance was covered under Institute
\nCargo Clause (C).  However, it included expressly the risk of non-delivery
\nof even single piece of log.  It included the risk of the vessel or craft being
\nstranded or grounded.  It also included the risk of institute theft pilferage and
\nnon-delivery.\n<\/p>\n
 \tYet again on 2nd March, 1988 and 11th March, 1988, evidently, the
\nscope of aforesaid policy was enlarged pursuant whereto or in furtherance
\nwhereof further endorsements were made by paying additional premium, in
\nterms whereof the risk of non-delivery was specifically covered.  It will bear
\nrepetition to state that the vessel could not proceed from Singapore owing to
\nits unseaworthiness.  It was, thus, covered by the terms of the extended
\nterms of  insurance policy.  The Division Bench failed to consider this aspect
\nof the matter.\n<\/p>\n
 \tClause 1.1.2 included the risk of the vessel or craft being stranded or
\ngrounded.  The word ‘stranded’ is not a term of art.  The expression has also
\nbeen used in the Navy Act.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary of Words and Phrases, Fifth Edition,
\nVolume 5, the word ‘strand’ has been defined as :\n<\/p>\n
“‘Strand’ is a Saxon word, signifying a shore or
\nbank of a sea or any great river”\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn The New Lexicon Wesbter’s Dictionary of the English Language,
\nVolume 2, the word ‘strand’ has been defined as:\n<\/p>\n
“strand: 1. the shore of body of water (esp. of a sea
\nor lake). 2 to drive onto the shore\/ to run (a boat)
\naground\/ to cause (someone) to find himself
\naccidentally and unwillingly held up on a journey
\nor left suddenly somewhere without resources, the
\nfog stranded passengers at the airport (esp. pass.)
\nto leave ashore when the tide goes out or water
\nlevel sinks, the whale was stranded.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn P. Ramanatha Aiyar’s Advanced Law Lexicon, 3rd edition, page
\n4494, it is stated:\n<\/p>\n
“Strand. The word “strand” means the verge of the
\nsea, or of any river.\n<\/p>\n
Strand (Sax.) is any shore or bank of a sea or river.
\nHence the street in the west suburbs of London,
\nwhich lay next the shore or bank of the Thames, is
\ncalled the Strand.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn Black’s Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, the word ‘strand’ has been
\ndefined as :\n<\/p>\n
“A shore or bank of the sea or a river.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tIf the ship was stranded at Singapore and goods were offloaded from
\nit, Appellant must be held to have discharged its burden.  Findings of fact
\nwere arrived at by the learned Single Judge on the basis of the pleadings of
\nthe parties.  If a clause of Marine Insurance policy covers a broad fact, in our
\nopinion, it would be inequitable to deny the insured to raise a plea
\nparticularly when the insurer being a State within the meaning of Article 12
\nof the Constitution of India is expected to act fairly and reasonably.  The
\npurport and object for which goods are insured must be given full effect.  In
\na case of ambiguity, the construction of an insurance policy should be made
\nin favour of the insured and not insurer.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn Pushpalaya Printers, this Court held:\n<\/p>\n
“Where the words of a document are
\nambiguous, they shall be construed against the
\nparty who prepared the document. This rule
\napplies to contracts of insurance and clause 5 of
\nthe insurance policy even after reading the entire
\npolicy in the present case should be construed
\nagainst the insurer”\n<\/p>\n
 \tSection 60 of the Marine Insurance Act defines ‘constructive total
\nloss’ in the following terms:\n<\/p>\n
“60. Constructive total loss defined.–
\n(1) Subject to any express provision in the policy,
\nthere is a constructive total loss where the subject-
\nmatter insured is reasonably abandoned on account
\nof its actual total loss appearing to be unavoidable,
\nor because it could not be preserved from actual
\ntotal loss without an expenditure which would
\nexceed its value when the expenditure had been
\nincurred.\n<\/p>\n
(2) In particular, there is a constructive total loss–\n<\/p>\n
(i) where the assured is deprived of the possession
\nof his ship or goods by a peril insured against, and\n<\/p>\n
(a) it is unlikely that he can recover the ship or
\ngoods, as the case may be, or\n<\/p>\n
(b) the cost of recovering the ship or goods, as the
\ncase may be, would exceed their value when
\nrecovered; or\n<\/p>\n
(ii) in the case of damage to a ship, where she is so
\ndamaged by a peril insured against that the cost of
\nrepairing the damage would exceed the value of
\nthe ship when repaired.\n<\/p>\n
In estimating the cost of repairs, no deduction is to
\nbe made in respect of general average
\ncontributions to those repairs payable by other
\ninterests, but account is to be taken of the expense
\nof future salvage operations and of any future
\ngeneral average contributions to which the ship
\nwould be liable if required; or\n<\/p>\n
(iii) In the case of damage to goods, where the cost
\nof repairing the damage and forwarding the goods
\nto their destination would exceed their value on
\narrival.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe definition of “constructive total loss” contained in Section 60 is
\nnot exhaustive.  The opening words of Section 60 of the Marine Insurance
\nAct are important.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn Mukesh K. Tripathi v. Senior Division Manager, LIC and Others
\n[(2004) 8 SCC 387], this Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
“The interpretation clause contained in a statute
\nalthough may deserve a broader meaning having
\nemployed the word “includes” but therefor also it
\nis necessary to keep in view the scheme of the
\nobject and purport of the statute which takes him
\nout of the said definition. Furthermore, the
\ninterpretation section begins with the words
\n“unless the context otherwise requires”.\n<\/p>\n
40. In Ramesh Mehta v. Sanwal Chand Singhvi<\/a> it
\nwas noticed: (SCC p. 426, paras 27-28)
\n“27. A definition is not to be read in isolation. It
\nmust be read in the context of the phrase which
\nwould define it. It should not be vague or
\nambiguous. The definition of words must be given
\na meaningful application; where the context makes
\nthe definition given in the interpretation clause
\ninapplicable, the same meaning cannot be
\nassigned.\n<\/p>\n
28. In State of Maharashtra v. Indian Medical
\nAssn.<\/a> one of us (V.N. Khare, C.J.) stated that the
\ndefinition given in the interpretation clause having
\nregard to the contents would not be applicable. It
\nwas stated: (SCC p. 598, para 8)
\n‘8. A bare perusal of Section 2 of the Act shows
\nthat it starts with the words “in this Act, unless the
\ncontext otherwise requires “. Let us find out
\nwhether in the context of the provisions of Section
\n64 of the Act the defined meaning of the
\nexpression “management” can be assigned to the
\nword “management” in Section 64 of the Act. In
\npara 3 of the Regulation, the Essentiality
\nCertificate is required to be given by the State
\nGovernment and permission to establish a new
\nmedical college is to be given by the State
\nGovernment under Section 64 of the Act. If we
\ngive the defined meaning to the expression
\n“management” occurring in Section 64 of the Act,
\nit would mean the State Government is required to
\napply to itself for grant of permission to set up a
\ngovernment medical college through the
\nUniversity. Similarly it would also mean the State
\nGovernment applying to itself for grant of
\nEssentiality Certificate under para 3 of the
\nRegulation. We are afraid the defined meaning of
\nthe expression “management” cannot be assigned
\nto the expression “management” occurring in
\nSection 64 of the Act. In the present case, the
\ncontext does not permit or requires to apply the
\ndefined meaning to the word “management”
\noccurring in Section 64 of the Act.'”\n<\/p>\n
\t[See also M\/s. Pandey & Co. Builders Pvt. Ltd v. State of Bihar &
\nAnr. 2006 (11) SCALE 665]<\/p>\n
 \tInterpretation of ‘constructive loss’ contained in Section 60 is subject
\nto any express provision in the policy.  The definition of constructive total
\nloss, therefore, as contained therein would be subject to any other clause
\nwhich may be in the policy.  The policy contained a clause which was not in
\ncommensurate with the said provision.  We, in a case of this nature, have to
\ngive effect to the terms of insurance.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe Division Bench of the High Court has referred to Middows
\n(supra), which has expressly been reversed by the House of Lords in
\nRickards v. Forestal Land Timber and Railways Co., Ltd. 1941 (3) All ER
\n62] wherein it was clearly held that the notice of abandonment can be given.\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn Halsbury’s Laws of England, Fourth Edition Volume 25, Reissue
\n2003, page 257, ‘constructive loss’ has been defined as follows:\n<\/p>\n
 “Subject to any express provision in the policy,
\nthere is a constructive total loss where the subject
\nmatter insured is reasonably abandoned on account
\nof its actual total loss appearing to be unavoidable,
\nor because it could not be preserved from actual
\ntotal loss without an expenditure which would
\nexceed its value when the expenditure had been
\nincurred.  Whether these conditions as to
\nconstructive total loss are or are not satisfied is in
\neach case a question of fact.\n<\/p>\n
In particular, there is a constructive total loss–
\n(1) where the assured is deprived of the possession
\nof his ship or goods by a peril insured against, and:\n<\/p>\n
(a) it is unlikely that he can recover the ship or
\ngoods, as the case may be, or\n<\/p>\n
(b) the cost of recovering the ship or goods, as the
\ncase may be, would exceed their value when
\nrecovered;”\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe likelihood of recovery must be judged in the light of the
\nprobabilities as they would have appeared to a reasonable assured at the
\nmoment when he knew of his loss and could have given notice of
\nabandonment. The former rule of law that a frustration of the venture by an
\ninsured peril gives rise to a constructive total loss under a voyage policy on
\ngoods, although the goods themselves are not damages, has not been altered.
\n[See Rickards (supra)]<\/p>\n
 \tIt is again undisputed that after the ship became unseaworthy,
\nAppellant took steps to recover the value of the cargo with a view to
\nminimize its loss due to non-delivery.  It, therefore, fulfilled its contractual
\nobligation in that behalf.  Sale of cargo was allowed by the High Court of
\nSingapore in suit No. 711 of 1989.  It was only at that stage, Appellant could
\ncome to the conclusion that the cost of recovering and getting the cargo back
\nto Calcutta would cost more than if the sale was effected at Singapore.  The
\ncause of action arose then.  The learned Single Judge has taken specific note
\nof the said fact stating that Appellant had sought for advice of Respondent as
\nto whether the sale would go through at Singapore or in Calcutta by its letter
\ndated 12th August, 1989 which was marked as Ex. S, relevant portion
\nwhereof reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
“Local Sale in Singapore”\n<\/p>\n
On Solicitor’s request the Court has given
\npermission to dispose off the cargo in order to
\nminimize the loss in view of the deterioration in
\nquality of material.  Accordingly, the Solicitors
\nappointed M\/s. Toplings, Recovery Agent, who
\nadvertised the sale in newspapers and the best offer
\nreceived for the cargo consisting of 2300 CBM
\nnow lying over there is U.S. $ 85,000.  Out of this
\nour share comes as under:\n<\/p>\n
Total value offered for 2300 CBM = US$ 85,000.
\nTherefore, our shoare 85000 x 2057.73\/ 2300 =
\nUS$ 76,046.54<\/p>\n
US$ 76,046.54 x Rs. 16.90 = Rs. 12,85,166.50<\/p>\n
 Whereas we have already paid Rs. 12,85,166.50
\ntowards the consignment of 296 logs measuring
\n1268.99 CBM under the L\/C and US $ 1,18,416\/-
\nis still payable to the shipper against the
\ndocuments for 178 Logs measuring 789.74 CBM
\nreceived under the D.A.  Thus, there is a loss of
\naround over 30 lakhs while disposing the entire
\nconsignment in Singapore.\n<\/p>\n
To bring the Cargo to Calcutta for Sale in India:\n<\/p>\n
To bring the cargo from Singapore to Calcutta for
\nsale in India, the position will be as under:\n<\/p>\n
a)\tExpenditure to be borne by insurance co.
\ntowards freight and other charges like loading into
\nship etc. at Singapore
\ni.e. US $75\/- per CBM
\ni.e. 2057.73 CBM x US $ 75
\n$1,54,329.75 x Rs. 16.90 = Rs. 26,08,172.77<\/p>\n
b)\tExpenditure to be borne by us towards Duty
\nand clearing expenses i.e. Rs. 721\/- CBM i.e.
\n2057.73 CBM x Rs. 721\/- per CBM comes = Rs.\n<\/p>\n
14,83,623.30<\/p>\n
Total  = Rs. 40,91,796.07<\/p>\n
  \tThe best price that we can get for the said
\nCargo in Calcutta is Rs. 1942\/- per CBM.\n<\/p>\n
Therefore, the total sale realization will be as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
2057.73 x Rs. 1942 = Per CBM Rs. 39,95,700\/-”\n<\/p>\n
 \tIn that view of the matter, Respondent was held to be entitled to get
\ncredit thereof.  Clause 13 of the insurance policy was, thus, clearly attracted.\n<\/p>\n
\tReliance has strongly been placed on a decision of this Court in Bihar
\nSupply Syndicate v. Asiatic Navigation and Others<\/a> [(1993) 2 SCC 639 : AIR
\n1993 SC 2054] wherein this Court was dealing with a different fact situation.
\nIn that case, the vessel in question was diverted to Vishakhapatnam along
\nwith cargo where the repairs of the vessel were expected to be completed.
\nThe vessel was, however, not repaired nor the wages of the crew members
\nwere paid as a result whereof the ship was directed to be arrested.  It was in
\nthe aforementioned fact situation opined:\n<\/p>\n
“It is thus clear, after knowing the fact, that we
\nare dealing with a Marine Insurance Policy with
\nInstitute Cargo Clauses (FPA) attached against the
\nInsurance Company, it is the duty of the plaintiff to
\nprove as a fact that the cargo was lost due to perils
\nof the sea. Since the finding of the High Court is
\nthat no sea water entered in the engine room and
\nthe fact that the cargo was intact even after the ship
\nwas towed to Vishakhapatnam showed that no sea
\nwater entered the ship and, therefore, the loss to
\nthe plaintiff was not on account of perils of the sea
\nand the suit of the plaintiff against the Insurance
\nCompany i.e. defendant 4 was rightly dismissed by
\nthe High Court.”\n<\/p>\n
 \tThe said decision cannot be said to have any application in this case in
\nview of the extended terms of policy.  Non-delivery of goods may be on any
\naccount.  It need not always be a ‘case of reasonably abandoned’.  The
\nmeaning of the expression ‘peril insured against’ would depend upon the
\nterms of the policy.  The policy was extended to a case where the costs of
\ntransportation would be more than the value of the goods.  Marine Insurance
\nAct is subject to the terms of insurance policy.  Where the insurer takes
\nadditional premium and insure a higher risk, no restrictive meaning thereto
\nneed be given.  A term of the policy must be given its effect.  While
\nconstruing a contract of insurance, the reason for entering thereinto and the
\nrisks sought to be covered must be considered on its own terms.\n<\/p>\n
 \tWhen the entire case is based on a construction of insurance policy,
\nthe question of adduction of any oral evidence would be irrelevant
\nparticularly when the learned Single Judge gave due credit of the amount
\nreceived on auction of the goods under the orders of the Singapore Court.
\nThe value of the cargo was known.  It is not a disputed amount.  Thus,
\nwhatever has been recovered by way of sale of the said logs, the same has to
\nbe credited for and Appellant should be held entitled only to the balance
\namount.\n<\/p>\n
 \tWhat would, thus, be the meaning of the word ‘possession’ under
\nSub-section (2) of Section 60 of the Marine Insurance Act read with Clause
\n13 of the policy?  It is not the case of any of the parties that Appellant was
\ngiven actual possession of the goods.  Unseaworthiness of vessel due to
\nwhich it became stranded as a result whereof the goods could not be
\ndelivered to Appellant, in our opinion, would come within the meaning of
\nthe expression “peril insured against”.\n<\/p>\n
 \tThis leaves us to the question as to whether the exclusionary clauses
\ncontained in the insurance policy are attracted.\n<\/p>\n
 \tRespondent in its written statement did not raise such a contention.  It
\nwas required to be specifically pleaded and proved by Respondent.  The
\nburden to prove the applicability of exclusionary clauses was on
\nRespondent.  Neither any issue has been raised, nor any evidence has been
\nadduced in this behalf.  It is also not a case that the servants of the assured
\nwere privy to the unseaworthiness as provided for in Clause 5.5.1 of the
\ninsurance policy.  There has been no evidence to that effect.  Even the said
\nprovision has not been applied by the learned Single Judge.\n<\/p>\n
 \tFor the reasons aforementioned, the appeal is allowed and the
\nimpugned judgment of the Division Bench is set aside and the judgment and
\norder of the learned Single Judge is restored.  Appellant shall be entitled to
\ncosts throughout.  Counsel’s fees in this appeal assessed at Rs. 10,000\/-.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India M\/S. Peacock Plywood Pvt. Ltd vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd on 5 December, 2006 Author: S.B. Sinha Bench: S.B. Sinha, Dalveer Bhandari CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5608 of 2006 PETITIONER: M\/s. Peacock Plywood Pvt. Ltd. RESPONDENT: The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05\/12\/2006 BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Dalveer […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-73920","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nM\/S. Peacock Plywood Pvt. Ltd vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd on 5 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peacock-plywood-pvt-ltd-vs-the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-on-5-december-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"M\/S. Peacock Plywood Pvt. Ltd vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd on 5 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peacock-plywood-pvt-ltd-vs-the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-on-5-december-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2006-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-04T21:37:38+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"38 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-peacock-plywood-pvt-ltd-vs-the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-on-5-december-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-peacock-plywood-pvt-ltd-vs-the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-on-5-december-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"M\\\/S. Peacock Plywood Pvt. Ltd vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd on 5 December, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-04T21:37:38+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-peacock-plywood-pvt-ltd-vs-the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-on-5-december-2006\"},\"wordCount\":7691,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-peacock-plywood-pvt-ltd-vs-the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-on-5-december-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-peacock-plywood-pvt-ltd-vs-the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-on-5-december-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-peacock-plywood-pvt-ltd-vs-the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-on-5-december-2006\",\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Peacock Plywood Pvt. Ltd vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd on 5 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-12-04T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-04T21:37:38+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-peacock-plywood-pvt-ltd-vs-the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-on-5-december-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-peacock-plywood-pvt-ltd-vs-the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-on-5-december-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ms-peacock-plywood-pvt-ltd-vs-the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-on-5-december-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"M\\\/S. Peacock Plywood Pvt. Ltd vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd on 5 December, 2006\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"M\/S. Peacock Plywood Pvt. Ltd vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd on 5 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peacock-plywood-pvt-ltd-vs-the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-on-5-december-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"M\/S. Peacock Plywood Pvt. Ltd vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd on 5 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peacock-plywood-pvt-ltd-vs-the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-on-5-december-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-04T21:37:38+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"38 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peacock-plywood-pvt-ltd-vs-the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-on-5-december-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peacock-plywood-pvt-ltd-vs-the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-on-5-december-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"M\/S. Peacock Plywood Pvt. Ltd vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd on 5 December, 2006","datePublished":"2006-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-04T21:37:38+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peacock-plywood-pvt-ltd-vs-the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-on-5-december-2006"},"wordCount":7691,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peacock-plywood-pvt-ltd-vs-the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-on-5-december-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peacock-plywood-pvt-ltd-vs-the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-on-5-december-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peacock-plywood-pvt-ltd-vs-the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-on-5-december-2006","name":"M\/S. Peacock Plywood Pvt. Ltd vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd on 5 December, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-12-04T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-04T21:37:38+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peacock-plywood-pvt-ltd-vs-the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-on-5-december-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peacock-plywood-pvt-ltd-vs-the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-on-5-december-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ms-peacock-plywood-pvt-ltd-vs-the-oriental-insurance-co-ltd-on-5-december-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"M\/S. Peacock Plywood Pvt. Ltd vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd on 5 December, 2006"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73920","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=73920"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73920\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=73920"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=73920"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=73920"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}