Baboo Lall Jain, J. - (1.) The plaintiff has instituted this suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 43,92,556.60p. from the defendant as compensation for loss of the cargc dispatched by M. V. "Sea Cloud: from the port of Mersin in Turkey and intended for transportation to the port of Bombay. The cargo consisted of about 500 tons of chick peas in all covered by four bills of lading.
(2.) According to the plaintiff the value of the said cargo of chick pease was Rs. 32,66,750/-. The rest of the claim is for interest. The Bills of Lading, are dated 8th May 1986, or a day or two before or after. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff entered into a contract of Marine insurance in respect of the said cargo with the defendant on 5th May, 1986. On 6th May, 1986, the defendant issued a cover-note in respect of the same, However, at the time of effecting the insurance the question of declaration of the name of the ship could not arise since the cargo was not shipped by that time and the plaintiff had no intimation about the same. By a letter dated 12th May, 1986 the plaintiff declared the name of the ship to the defendant. By a letter dated 16th May, 1986 the defendant declined to accept the name of the ship so declared which according to the defendant, did not satisfy the specifications in respect of the ship, as laid down by the cover-note. It appears from the evidence on record that the said ship. M.V. "Sea Cloud" some time after commencement of its journey from Mersin Port, Beirut, since the same developed some mechanical troubles. It also appears from the evidence on record that the said cargo was transhipped to another ship M.V. "Rama" and the said ship Rama was lost after it left the Port of Beirut on or about 18th May, 1986.
(3.) On 30th May, 1986, the plaintiff was intimated with regard to the loss of the cargo. On 3rd June, 1986 the shipping documents consisting inter-alia of the Bills of Lading, the Bills of Exchange drawn by the Singapore seller of the plaintiff, that is one Dipak Trading Company PTE, were presented to the plaintiff through the Bank of India for acceptance. The said documents were presented by the Bank of India on behalf of Dipak Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. of Singapore to the plaintiff along with a presentation memo dated 3.6.1988 for acceptance in case of two bills of exchange, and for payment in case of the other two bills of exchange, which were payable on sight. The plaintiff did not accept or pay any of the four bills. On 6.5.1986 the plaintiff lodged a claim with the defendant. Lot of correspondence was exchanged between the plaintiff and defendant and since the defendant declined to pay the claim of the plaintiff, this suit was instituted on 25.3.1988.;