Judgment : The unsuccessful plaintiff filed instant appeal against Judgment and decree, dated 31.10.1990 in O.S.No.155 of 1984 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Nellore. His suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.82,000/- which includes Rs.58,600/-towards damages and Rs.23,400/-towards salvage charges, was dismissed by trial Court accepting the plea of respondent insurance company, namely, Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited (now Oriental Insurance Company Limited). In this appeal, parties are referred to as they are arrayed in suit. 2. The case of plaintiff is as follows. Bobbala Dharma Raju is original owner of MPM 370 fishing boat. So as to insure the boat with defendant company, Dharma Raju paid first instalment of premium in a sum of Rs.1,650/-on 17.12.1982. Even before regular Marine Hull Policy could be issued, he entered into an agreement with plaintiff to sell the boat for Rs.66,000/-. Having received entire sale consideration, he transferred boat to plaintiff. On 15.02.1983, seller and buyer addressed letters to defendant for transfer of Marine Policy. On 12.03.1983, agent of defendant addressed communication to plaintiff advising to pay second instalment premium to defendant. In response thereto, on 23.03.1983, plaintiff paid second instalment and defendant issued receipt favouring Dharma Raju. Yet again, on 15.06.1983, defendant's agent addressed yet another letter to plaintiff to pay third instalment of premium which was paid on 29.06.1983 under a receipt in the name of Dharma Raju. Unfortunately, on 03.07.1983, the boat drowned in Bay of Bengal near Krishnapatnam. Plaintiff issued telegram and also addressed letter on 19.09.1983 requesting to send necessary forms to enable him to make claim for loss of boat under Hull Policy. As there was no response, he got issued a legal notice on 06.12.1983. In response thereto, defendant sent a reply on 27.12.1983 denying liability. However, surveyor sent by defendant company inspected the boat, estimated damage and submitted a report recording statements of driver and luskers of the boat. 3. Defendant opposed suit taking following pleas. Purchase of fishing boat by plaintiff and transfer of licence in his favour by Port Officer are denied. Defendant is not aware of any such purchase nor it has knowledge that plaintiff spent an amount of Rs.10,000/-for repairs. Dharma Raju gave proposal to insure the boat under Hull Policy No.MH/38/82, dated 17.12.1982, but sale of the boat by plaintiff is denied. Defendant is not aware of any such purchase nor it has knowledge that plaintiff spent an amount of Rs.10,000/-for repairs. Dharma Raju gave proposal to insure the boat under Hull Policy No.MH/38/82, dated 17.12.1982, but sale of the boat by plaintiff is denied. The allegation that plaintiff and Dharma Raju sent letter on 15.02.1983 under Certificate of Posting is denied. Plaintiff did not pay second and third instalment premiums. Defendant issued policy covering risk of the boat in favour of Dharma Raju, who alone is in possession of original policy. Defendant never received any intimation either from Dharma Raju or from plaintiff about transfer of vessel nor there was any communication requesting to transfer policy to plaintiff. Dharma Raju alone is the policyholder and he is parted with possession and on the date of alleged accident, he was not owner of the boat. Plaintiff is not insured under any policy, and therefore, defendant is not liable to reimburse plaintiff. There is no transfer of policy as per articles of policy nor such transfer was endorsed on the policy. There is no privity of contract nor legal obligation to reimburse plaintiff. As on the date of accident, there is no subsisting policy issued by defendant to plaintiff. The allegation that Dharma Raju transferred the boat has not been duly endorsed by defendant and therefore, plaintiff is not entitled to claim any amount from defendant. Defendant did not receive premium in respect of third instalment on or before 16.03.1983. The interim policy lapsed and was not subsisting as on 03.07.1983 when the accident occurred. The policy became inoperative and plaintiff cannot invoke the terms of policy. The civil Court has no jurisdiction as under the policy, the dispute has to be resolved by arbitration. 4. Whether civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the suit as the dispute has not been referred to an arbitrator prior to filing the suit, and whether plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount as prayed for? These are two issues framed by trial Court keeping in view the rival pleadings. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1. Dharma Raju gave evidence as P.W.2. P.Ws.3 to 6 are also examined and plaintiff marked Exs.A.1 to A.16. Defendant did not lead any oral evidence but marked Ex.B.1, Marine Hull Proposal Form signed by Dharma Raju and Ex.B.2 Survey Report. These are two issues framed by trial Court keeping in view the rival pleadings. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1. Dharma Raju gave evidence as P.W.2. P.Ws.3 to 6 are also examined and plaintiff marked Exs.A.1 to A.16. Defendant did not lead any oral evidence but marked Ex.B.1, Marine Hull Proposal Form signed by Dharma Raju and Ex.B.2 Survey Report. On considering evidence, on issue No.1, which was not argued by both sides, the trial Judge held that the same is against defendant as copy of the policy was not filed by either of the parties. On issue No.2, trial Court found that purchase of fishing boat by plaintiff under Ex.A.16, agreement, is correct, that Exs.A.2 and A.3, letters addressed by plaintiff and P.W.2 did not mention the policy number and hence, cannot be accepted, that from Exs.A.2 to A.4, it is not possible to infer valid transfer of boat in favour of plaintiff, that P.W.2 did not take proper steps to obtain policy document, that plaintiff did not take necessary steps to get the policy transferred in his name and that there is no valid policy under which plaintiff can claim insurance, that though Ex.A.4, certificate of posting, mentioned that sending of Exs.A.2 and A.3, their contents cannot be presumed to be correct, that Exs.A.8 and A.9, letters written by agent of defendant cannot be given any effect. The suit was accordingly dismissed. 5. Learned senior counsel for plaintiff (appellant) submits that when the factum of transfer of boat as per Ex.A.16 is accepted, and P.Ws.1 and 2 by their oral evidence proved Exs.A.2 and A.3, under which they requested for transfer of policy, inference ought to be drawn is that there was implied agreement by transferee for transfer of policy. Premium was paid by P.W.1 as advised by agent of defendant and therefore, by conduct, defendant accepted existence of Marine Hull Policy in favour of plaintiff. The surveyor in Ex.B.2 also described P.W.1 as owner of the boat and therefore, defendant is liable to pay the amount. Besides placing reliance on various provisions of Marine Insurance Act, 1963 (hereafter called, Marine Act), learned senior counsel also placed reliance on United India Insurance Company Limited v Andrew Vivera ( AIR 1990 Ker 139 ). 6. The surveyor in Ex.B.2 also described P.W.1 as owner of the boat and therefore, defendant is liable to pay the amount. Besides placing reliance on various provisions of Marine Insurance Act, 1963 (hereafter called, Marine Act), learned senior counsel also placed reliance on United India Insurance Company Limited v Andrew Vivera ( AIR 1990 Ker 139 ). 6. Learned counsel for defendant (respondent) submits that unless and until policy is endorsed effecting transfer for the purpose of Section 32 of the Marine Act, insurer cannot be made liable for the loss sustained by plaintiff. Under Ex.B.1, proposal made by Dharma Raju, insurance company is not liable after expiry of period of three months unless and until the premium instalment is paid within due date. Dharma Raju failed to pay the premium before 16.03.1983, and therefore, Ex.B.1, lapsed. Nextly, he contends that Dharma Raju committed breach of conditions of policy by effecting change of ownership, which automatically results in termination of policy, after 15 days as per clause 4.2 of the Institute Fishing Vessel Coverage Guidelines. Learned counsel relies on various provisions of Marine Act and also provisions of Insurance Act, 1938 (hereafter called, Insurance Act). 7. The only point that arises for consideration is whether defendant is liable to pay the loss incurred by plaintiff due to drowning (grounding) of fishing boat which he purchased from P.W.2. 8. The admitted case of plaintiff is that P.W.2 is owner of fishing boat MPM 370. The original owner proposed to insure said boat for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rs.35,000/-for Hull, Rs.50,000/- for Machinery and Rs.15,000/-for accessories). On 17.12.1982, he paid Rs.1,650/- under Ex.A.5, to M.R.Mohana Rao (agent of defendant). Ex.B.1 Marine Hull Proposal Form was submitted on 17.12.1982. In the same proposal form submitted by P.W.2, insurance cover was sought from 17.12.1982 to 16.03.1983 for a period of three months. As per conditions in Ex.B.1, liability of insurance company does not commence until acceptance of proposal is formally intimated by defendant. Plaintiff alleged that proposal under Ex.B.1 was accepted and formal insurance was issued but a copy of policy was not communicated to P.W.2. It is, however, denied by defendant. According to them, Ex.B.1, itself is the policy cum cover note for a period of three months and if the insured failed to pay subsequent instalment on or before 16.03.1983, insurance cover would lapse. It is, however, denied by defendant. According to them, Ex.B.1, itself is the policy cum cover note for a period of three months and if the insured failed to pay subsequent instalment on or before 16.03.1983, insurance cover would lapse. It is the case of plaintiff that he purchased the fishing boat from P.W.2 under Ex.A.16, dated 26.12.1982 and informed about purchase to defendant under Exs.A.2 and A.3 which were sent under Certificate of Posting under Ex.A.4. Subsequently, the agent to defendant by Ex.A.8 requested to pay second instalment and the amount was paid by plaintiff under Ex.A.6 on 23.03.1983. Again, the agent to defendant sent a letter, Ex.A.9, in response to which plaintiff paid third instalment of premium on 29.06.1983. Exs.A.6 and A.7 receipts were issued by defendant in the name of P.W.2 and not in the name of plaintiff. It is also the case of plaintiff that in spite of requests made by plaintiff and P.W.2 under Exs.A.2 and A.3, policy was not transferred in favour of plaintiff. The plaintiff, however, contends that by accepting second and third instalments of premium, under Exs.A.6 and A.7, defendant by his conduct accepted valid Marine Hull Policy and therefore, liable to make good the loss suffered by plaintiff due to the grounding of boat on 03.07.1983. This is disputed by defendant, who placed strong reliance on Ex.A.14, dated 27.12.1983, which is a letter sent to plaintiff's lawyer denying existence of insurance policy and denying liability. Before dealing with these, it is necessary to deal with Exs.A.2, A.3, A.6 to A.9. 9. Ex.A.2 is a letter written by plaintiff to defendant requesting transfer of Marine Hull Policy in his favour as he purchased the same from P.W.2. Ex.A.3 is a communication from P.W.2, in which, he alleged that he has obtained Hull Policy for his boat and he is paying instalments and that he sold the boat to P.W.1. He requested defendant to transfer it to P.W.1. Except Ex.A.4, there is no proof that these were sent to defendant. Defendant denied receipt of these communications. Though the law by reason of Section 27 of General Clauses Act, 1898, presumes due service of communication sent by Registered Post and/or Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due, there is no such presumption in law that communication sent under Certificate of Posting is duly served on the addressee. Defendant denied receipt of these communications. Though the law by reason of Section 27 of General Clauses Act, 1898, presumes due service of communication sent by Registered Post and/or Registered Post with Acknowledgement Due, there is no such presumption in law that communication sent under Certificate of Posting is duly served on the addressee. Except evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, no independent evidence is coming forth and therefore much importance cannot be given. Lower Court, believed Exs.A.2 and A.3 but did not believe contents thereof applying the principle that proof of document does not amount to proof of contents of documents. This is also sustainable for the simple reason that along with Exs.A.2 and A.3, P.W.1 and P.W.2 appear not to have sent a copy of Ex.A.16, agreement, under which P.W.1 purchased boat from P.W.2. 10. As noticed above, Exs.A.8 and A.9 are hand written letters allegedly written by M.R.Mohana Rao. In Ex.A.8, M.R.Mohana Rao addressed plaintiff as N.Raja Gopal Reddy whereas he addressed plaintiff as N.R.Reddy in Ex.A.9. Secondly, when Ex.B.1, Proposal, was submitted by Mohana Rao for obtaining policy in favour of P.W.2, why Exs.A.8 and A.9 were addressed to P.W.1. It is not explained properly. Even if the plaintiff's case is accepted that M.R.Mohana Rao is aware of purchase of boat by P.W.1 from P.W.2, under Ex.A.16, why the receipts, Exs.A.6 and A.7 evidencing payment of second and third instalments are not in the name of plaintiff? They are issued in the name of P.W.2. This supports defendant that even as on the date of payment of last instalment of premium on 29.06.1983, under Ex.A.7, insurance policy, if any, was not transferred in the name of plaintiff. Yet another contention of defendant is that the amount of third instalment was paid after 16.03.1983. Payment of premium to agent does not result in concluded contract between defendant and plaintiff. This is well settled. A reference may be made to Oriental Fire and General Insurance Company Limited v Panvel Industrial Co-operative Estates Limited ( AIR 1992 Bom 107 ). 11. In the above mentioned case, the agent of Oriental Insurance approached insured for insuring industrial shed. Premium was paid by cheque to agent, who did not issue a cover note because the shed was not inspected and the proposal form was not filled up. The very next day, there was a fire accident in the shed. 11. In the above mentioned case, the agent of Oriental Insurance approached insured for insuring industrial shed. Premium was paid by cheque to agent, who did not issue a cover note because the shed was not inspected and the proposal form was not filled up. The very next day, there was a fire accident in the shed. The insured filed suit for claiming insurance amount. The trial Judge decreed the suit placing reliance on the factum of agent accepting the premium. The Bombay High Court, however, after analyzing Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act and after referring to Life Insurance Corporation of India v Raja Vapireddy Komalyalli Kamba ( AIR 1984 SC 1014 ), held as under. ... the evidence shows that there is standard form of proposal and admittedly no such proposal form was filled by the respondent. Therefore, it is clear that the appellant was not knowing about the precise nature of the risk, which was required to be undertaken. It is also not the case of the respondent that agent was not given all the information in that respect orally. There was no full disclosure of all the material facts on the part of the respondent to enable the appellant to accept the risk. Further, the evidence of Mr.Shaha shows that he was not ready to issue the cover-note unless he inspected the site to enable him to know the nature of the risk. There is no pleading or evidence to show that there was an arrangement between the parties on the fundamentals of insurance proposed particularly regarding the nature of the risk, the period of insurance and the rate of premium. In my view, therefore, there was no acceptance on the part of the appellant. Similarly, it is the recognized practice to issue cover-notes which ordinarily incorporate the terms and conditions of policy, though it is a stop-gap arrangement. 12. Therefore, Ex.B.1, which is proposal-cum-cover note valid upto 16.03.1983 and payment of premium instalments under Exs.A.6 and A.7 cannot be construed as binding contract between plaintiff and defendant. Learned senior counsel relies on M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited v Andrew Vivera (supra) -a case arising under Marine Act in support of the submission that conduct of parties can be relied on to infer concluded contract between insurer and insured. Learned senior counsel relies on M/s.United India Insurance Company Limited v Andrew Vivera (supra) -a case arising under Marine Act in support of the submission that conduct of parties can be relied on to infer concluded contract between insurer and insured. In the said case, Andrew Vivera filed suit for recovery of certain sum being the amount due to him on account of damage to his fishing boat covered by insurance policy. The suit was decreed by a Subordinate Judge. In Appeal, United India Insurance Company contended that fishing boat was not having monsoon coverage policy and therefore, they cannot made liable. Referring to oral and documentary evidence, especially the receipt under which premium with regard to monsoon coverage policy was paid, Division Bench of Kerala High Court came to the conclusion that the said receipt contained sufficient details to come to a conclusion that premium was paid for fishing boat to cover monsoon risk. Learned Judge relied on Section 53 of Marine Act and held that "a contract of marine insurance is deemed to be concluded when the proposal of the assured is accepted by the insurer, whether the policy is issued or not and for the purpose of showing when the proposal was accepted, reference can be made to the slip, covering note or other customary memorandum of contract". 13. Learned senior counsel for plaintiff contends that P.W.2 transferred fishing boat to P.W.1 under Ex.A.16, contract (customary mode of transfer) and therefore, defendant is bound to pay the damages to plaintiff. The submission cannot be accepted. As already mentioned, Ex.B.1 itself is not conclusive that there would be concluded contract beyond 16.03.1983. Further as already mentioned liability of insurance company does not commence until acceptance of the proposal is intimated by the company. A reference may be made to Section 23 of the Marine Act. According to this provision, a contract of marine insurance is deemed to be concluded when the proposal of the assured is accepted by insurer. Acceptance of proposal has not been proved by plaintiff. This is clearly mentioned in Ex.B.1, and therefore, Kerala authority has no application to the case on hand. The factum of transfer of assignment as indicated in Ex.A.16 may at best bind P.Ws.1 and 2 inter se and does not bind the defendant as contended by learned senior counsel. Acceptance of proposal has not been proved by plaintiff. This is clearly mentioned in Ex.B.1, and therefore, Kerala authority has no application to the case on hand. The factum of transfer of assignment as indicated in Ex.A.16 may at best bind P.Ws.1 and 2 inter se and does not bind the defendant as contended by learned senior counsel. The other circumstances, which lent support to this conclusion, are as follows. Exs.A.16, A.2 and A.3 would show that at least on 26.12.1982, when boat was transferred there ought to have been formal transfer of policy in favour of plaintiff as otherwise there was no necessity to P.Ws.1 and 2 to send Exs.A.2 and A.3. Ex.A.8 was addressed to plaintiff but second instalment premium was paid by P.W.2 under Ex.A.6, receipt. Further, in Exs.A.8 and A.9, plaintiff has been mentioned differently. Ex.A.5 is the receipt for first instalment premium which mentions the name of agent as M.R.M.R. Exs.A.6 and A.7 under which second and third instalments were paid allegedly by P.W.1 do not contain the name of agent who allegedly addressed Exs.A.8 and A.9 letters to P.W.1. Therefore, allegation of transfer or assignment of Marine Hull Policy is not proved and even on probabilities, it is not possible to infer valid assignment/transfer of policy in favour of P.W.1. 14. Sections 33 and 54 of Marine Act read as under. 33. Premium to be arranged.- (1) Where an insurance is effected at a premium to be arranged, and no arrangement is made, a reasonable premium is payable. (2) Where an insurance is effected on the terms that an additional premium is to be arranged in a given event, and that event happens but no arrangement is made, then a reasonable additional premium is payable. 54. When premium payable.- Unless otherwise agreed, the duty of the assured or his agent to pay the premium, and the duty of the insurer to issue the policy to the assured or his agent, are concurrent conditions, and the insurer is not bound to issue the policy until payment or tender of the premium. 15. A plain reading of above two provisions would show that if the insurance is effected on the terms that premium is to be arranged in a given event and if the premium is not paid within the time stipulated, no valid contract of insurance would come into effect. 15. A plain reading of above two provisions would show that if the insurance is effected on the terms that premium is to be arranged in a given event and if the premium is not paid within the time stipulated, no valid contract of insurance would come into effect. As per Ex.B.1, P.W.2 obtained insurance for a period of three months from 17.12.1982 to 16.03.1983. Even according to plaintiff, second instalment premium was paid on 23.03.1983 and third instalment was paid on 29.06.1983 beyond 16.03.1983. Therefore, a valid contract of insurance cannot be said to exist binding defendant. That if the premium is not paid, no insurer can be compelled to assume risk is settled. (See New India Assurance Company Limited v Rula (2000 ACJ 630 (SC) : (2000) 3 SCC 195 ), National Insurance Company Limited v Seema Malhotra (2001 ACJ 638 (SC) : (2001) 3 SCC 151 ), Deddappa v National Insurance Company Limited ( 2008 ACJ 581 : (2008) 2 SCC 595 ) and National Insurance Company Limited v Abhaysing Pratapsing Waghela (2008) 9 SCC 133 )). 16. Section 64-VB of the Insurance Act, 1938, reads as under. 64-VB (1) No insurer shall assume any risk in India in respect of any insurance business on which premium is not ordinarily payable outside India unless and until the premium payable is received by him or is guaranteed to be paid by such person in such manner and within such time as may be prescribed or unless and until deposit of such amount as may be prescribed, is made in advance in the prescribed manner. (2) to (5) are not extracted. 17. In National Insurance Company Limited v Seema Malhotra (supra), Supreme Court held as under. In a contract of insurance when the insured gives a cheque towards payment of premium or part of the premium, such a contract consists of reciprocal promise. The drawer of the cheque promises the insurer that the cheque, on presentation, would yield the amount in cash. It cannot be forgotten that a cheque is a bill of exchange drawn on a specified banker. A bill of exchange is an instrument in writing containing an unconditional order directing a certain person to pay a certain sum of money to a certain person. It involves a promise that such money would be paid. ... It cannot be forgotten that a cheque is a bill of exchange drawn on a specified banker. A bill of exchange is an instrument in writing containing an unconditional order directing a certain person to pay a certain sum of money to a certain person. It involves a promise that such money would be paid. ... Thus, when the insured fails to pay the premium promised, or when the cheque issued by him towards the premium is returned dishonoured by the bank concerned the insurer need not perform his part of the promise. The corollary is that the insured cannot claim performance from the insurer in such a situation. 18. Whether assignment of policy should be accepted by insurer? Sections 17 and 52 of Marine Act deal with assignment of policy and/or assignment of interest in the policy. They read as under. 17. Assignment of interest.- Where the assured assigns or otherwise parts with his interest in the subject-matter insured, he does not thereby transfer to the assignee his rights under the contract of insurance, unless there be an express or implied agreement with the assignee to that effect. But the provisions of this section do not affect transmission of interest by operation of law. 52. When and how policy is assignable.-(1) A marine policy may be transferred by assignment unless it contains terms expressly prohibiting assignment. It may be assigned either before or after loss. (2) Where a marine policy has been assigned so as to pass the beneficial interest in such policy, the assignee of the policy is entitled to sue thereon in his own name; and the defendant is entitled to make any defence arising out of the contract which he would have been entitled to make if the suit had been brought in the name of the person by or on behalf of whom the policy was effected. (3) A marine policy may be assigned by endorsement thereon or in other customary manner. 19. A plain reading of these would show that there can be assignment of policy or interest in policy by endorsement in a customary manner. Learned senior counsel submits that when once Ex.A.16 is executed by P.Ws.1 and 2 transferring the boat under agreement of transfer, there is automatic assignment of policy. The submission cannot be accepted. A copy of Form of Marine Hull Policy has been placed before this Court. Learned senior counsel submits that when once Ex.A.16 is executed by P.Ws.1 and 2 transferring the boat under agreement of transfer, there is automatic assignment of policy. The submission cannot be accepted. A copy of Form of Marine Hull Policy has been placed before this Court. Clauses 4 and 5 reads as under. 4. TERMINATIONS: This clause 4 shall prevail notwithstanding any provision whether written typed or printed in this insurance inconsistent therewith. Unless the Underwriters agree to the contrary in writing, this insurance shall terminate automatically at the time of 4.1 Change of the Classification Society of the Vessel, or change, suspension, discontinuance, withdrawal of expiry of her class therein provided that if the Vessel is at sea such automatic termination shall be deferred until arrival at her next port or until the expiry of fifteen days, whichever shall first occur. However, where such change, suspension, discontinuance or withdrawal of her Class has resulted from loss or damage covered by Clause 6 of this insurance or which would be covered by an insurance of the Vessel subject to the current Institute War and Strikes Clauses Hulls Time such automatic termination shall only operate should the Vessel sail from her next port without the prior approval of the classification Society. 4.2 any change, voluntary or otherwise, in the ownership or flag, transfer to new management, or charter on a bareboat basis, provided that if the Vessel is at sea such automatic termination shall, if required, be deferred until arrival at her next port or until the expiry of fifteen days, whichever shall first occur. 4.3 requisition for title or use of the Vessel. However, in the event of requisition for title or use without the prior execution of a written agreement by the Assured, such automatic termination shall occur fifteen days after such requisition whether the Vessel is at sea or in port. 5. ASSIGNMENT: No assignment of or interest in this insurance in any moneys which may be or become payable thereunder is to be binding on or recognized by the underwriters unless a dated notice of such assignment or interest signed by the Assured, and by the assignor in the case of subsequent assignment, is endorsed on the policy and the policy with such endorsement is produced before payment of any claim or return of premium thereunder. 20. 20. Clause 4 of Marine Hull Policy is given overriding effect over other covenants therein. Clause 4.2 bars change of ownership, transfer of management without there being endorsement on the policy by insurer. When there is an express binding covenant in the policy of insurance, the plaintiff cannot be permitted to contend that Ex.A.16 amounts to assignment of policy. As rightly contended by learned counsel for defendant unless and until assignment is endorsed by insurer, assignee would not get any right to enforce the contract of insurance. That being the legal position even if P.W.1 paid premium under Exs.A.6 and A.7, and even if the survey report Ex.B.2 mentions P.W.1 as owner of the boat, insurance company cannot be made liable to cover accident risk. In that view of the matter, conclusions arrived at by trial Court are unassailable. The appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. 21. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.