IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.BHAVADASAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2010 / 30TH ASWINA 1932 AS.No. 155 of 1997(E) --------------------- ( OS.125/1993 of PRINCIPAL SUB COURT,KOCHI) .................... APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF NO.2: -------------------------------------------- STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PORTS, KERALA STATE PORT DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER, SRI.K.B.RAMANAND VS RESPONDENT NO.1/DEFENDANT IN O.S. RESPONDENT NO.2/PLAINTIFF NO.1. ------------------------------------------------------ 1. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. WILLINGDON ISLAND, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI 3. 2. M/S.COCHIN SHIPPING COMPANY (COCHIN) LTD. WHEEL HOUSE, INDIRA GANDHI ROAD, P.B. NO.636, WILLINGDON ISLAND, KOCHI 3, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. BY ADVS. SRI.A.M.SHAFFIQUE, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.V.B.JINNAH SRI.K.P.VIJAYAN SRI.BOBY MATHEW THIS APPEAL SUITS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: VK Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & P.Bhavadasan, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = A.S.No.155 of 1997-E = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2010. Judgment Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1.This appeal arises from a suit filed for recovery of money allegedly due under an insurance policy governed by the provisions of the Marine Insurance Act, 1963. Admittedly, the insured was M/s.Cochin Shipping Company(Cochin) Ltd. which was the first plaintiff in the suit. The State of Kerala was the second plaintiff. 2.The case of the plaintiffs can be briefly stated as follows: The State of Kerala gave a drudging contract to the Cochin Port Trust. A drudger Meena Kerala which belong to the State of Kerala was also leased to CPT. CPT appointed the first plaintiff as its agent for carrying out the drudging work. For the purpose of that AS155/97 -: 2 :- work, some pipes had to be shifted from Beypore to Cochin through the waters. The first plaintiff is the agent of CPT for carrying out the work. May be, it is the responsibility of the first plaintiff to move the goods(pipes) from Beypore to Cochin. In that transit of goods, certain incidents occurred in the waters. That led to a claim being raised on the ground that the pipes were lost in transit and that it amounts to a marine peril. 3.The trial court accepted the objections of the insurer and held that there was no insurable interest for the first plaintiff and that the plaintiffs have not proved the loss occasioned as a result of the alleged incident. 4.We are surprised that the State of Kerala alone has chosen to file an appeal while the first plaintiff who had obtained the insurance cover has not filed any appeal against the decision of the court below. AS155/97 -: 3 :- 5.We have seen Ext.A8 policy of insurance. The State of Kerala does not have a case that it had authorized the first plaintiff to take an insurance policy as its agent. May be, the goods belonged, in title, to the second plaintiff State of Kerala. But, there is no privity of contract between the State of Kerala and the insurer. Looking at the different provisions of the Marine Insurance Act, 1963, particularly Sections 2(c), 2(d)(i), 2(d)(ii), 7, 20 etc., we thought that the first plaintiff on its own had an insurable interest, having regard to the marine adventure in which it was involved. But, there is no reason why the State of Kerala could independently stand to sue the insurer merely on the strength of a policy issued in favour of the first plaintiff. There is also no case for the plaintiffs that the first plaintiff had, at any point of time, assigned the policy in favour of the second plaintiff. Nor, to appeal against the impugned verdict. Therefore, the second plaintiff did not have any independent right to sue. Even if the AS155/97 -: 4 :- second plaintiff's right is impeached, the first plaintiff's claim could have been considered on the basis of the provisions of the Marine Insurance Act. But, as already noticed, the appeal is only by the State of Kerala which has no independent right to sue the insurer or any cause of action to sustain the suit as it stands. For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that this appeal by the State is not entitled to succeed. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. We clarify that we have not stated anything and also the impugned judgment does not state anything, on the inter se rights as between the plaintiffs. Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, Judge. P.Bhavadasan, Sha/2610 Judge. AS155/97 -: 5 :- Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan & P.Bhavadasan, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = A.S.155 of 1997-E = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Judgment 22nd October, 2010.