Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

32. Before going to the real controversy between the parties it should be recorded here that in view of my finding that the vessel in suit became an actual total loss on October 18. 1965 it is wholly irrelevant to consider the events subsequent to her loss but as the matter was fully argued for a considerable number of days I will deal with all the Doints in the order they were urged before me. Mr. Roy Chowdhury contended that the vessel was available for release even after her condemnation in view of the agreement between the two Governments and this release was frustrated by her attachment made by the Civil Court and therefore this attachment was the last and the proximate cause of her loss and in any event it was a new cause and had broken "the links in the chain" of events following her condemnation and therefore the plaintiffs must fail in this action. He cited Fenwick (William France) and Co. v. North of England P. I. Association reported in 14 Asp. M. C. 92 where a British merchant ship was sunk by a German submarine and thereafter the insured ship ran over the submerged ship and was thereby partly damaged and in these circumstances it was held that the hostile act of the German submarine in sinking the other ship was not the proximate cause of damage of the insured ship and Bailhache. J. at p, 93 of the report said:

* * * * * To treat proximate cause as if it was the cause which is proximate in time is as I have said, out of the question. The cause which is truly proximate is that which is proximate in efficiency. That efficiency may have been preserved although other causes may meantime have sprung up which have yet not destroyed it, or truly impaired it. and it may culminate in a result of which it still remains the real efficient cause to which the event can be ascribed."

38. The loss which is produced by| the direct, efficient and predominating cause is the proximate cause of the loss in the law of Marine Insurance. Mere intrusion of a new cause is of no moment so long it does not wither away the efficiency of the direct, efficient and predominating cause. Merely because a cause has intervened, does not make it a nova causa supervenient. The intervening cause must of its own force destroy the efficacy of the existing cause and it must become an independent and a direct, efficient and predominating cause of the loss before it can be said that the loss is proximately caused by nova causa superveniens.

41. Furthermore, a mere negligence on the part of the assured is no answer to his claim on the policy of Marine Insurance. There must be a wilful misconduct on his part and this misconduct must be the proximate cause of the loss so as to defeat his claim. The Written Statement of the Insurer does not speak of any wilful misconduct of the plaintiffs. No indication was even given at the time the issues were suggested on their behalf. Non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of O. VI, R. 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure stands in the way of Insurers and they cannot be heard to say that the plaintiffs were guilty of any wilful misconduct. Moreover, the matter requires investigation of many facts in view of the provisions of the Defence of India Rules, the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, and the agreement, if any. between the two Governments for sending money to Pakistan. The burden lies on the Insurers to prove all those facts and they have utterly failed to discharge it and I overrule the contention made on their behalf that the proximate cause of her loss was the negligence or the wilful misconduct of the plaintiffs.