JUDGMENT M.S. Sonak, J. - Heard Mr J.P. Mulgaonkar, learned Senior Advocate, who appears along with Ms Rupa Benaulikar for the Appellant, and Mr U. R. Timble, who appears along with Ms Yadika Mandrekar for the Respondent. 2. The Appellant (original Plaintiff) appeals the Judgment and Decree dated 31/03/2015, by which the learned Senior Civil Judge, Vasco da Gama, Goa, dismissed the Special Civil Suit No.31/2008/B, seeking damages and compensation. 3. For convenience, the parties will be referred to by their title in the suit, i.e. the Appellant will be referred to as the Plaintiff and the Respondent as the Defendant. 4. Plaintiff, the owner of the barge M V Arun, insured the same with Defendant for an amount of Rs.60.00 lakhs. This insurance policy was effective from 22/11/2002 to 21/11/2003 (midnight). However, the insured barge was accidentally grounded in the river Zuari on 3/2/2003. Accordingly, Plaintiff sought indemnification from Defendant by raising a claim on 3/2/2003 itself. Defendant promptly appointed a surveyor by their letter dated 4/2/2003, and the surveyor called upon Plaintiff to invite tenders to select a salvor to undertake the salvage operations. 5. The Plaintiff, accordingly, invited tenders and awarded the salvage contract to Mr Kishor Nadkarni, who was the lowest bidder. This contract was awarded with the approval of the surveyor. The salvage operations were to be completed in two phases. The first phase was to offload the iron ore fines and move the vessel alongside the riverside bank. For this, Plaintiff agreed to pay the Salvor an amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs. The second phase was to re-float the barge and deliver the same in upright condition at Cabral Dry Dock at Quellosim, for which Plaintiff agreed to pay the Salvor an amount of Rs.13.00 lakhs. The Plaintiff has pleaded that the vessel's delivery was to be certified by the surveyor appointed by the Defendant-Insurance Company. 6. Plaintiff then pleaded that Salvor wrote some letters to the Insurance Company, which Mr Nadkarni prepared (Salvor), and Plaintiff's signature was obtained thereon under "constrained circumstances". Reference was made to Certificate dated 6/3/2003 and the letter dated 13/2/2004. This Certificate and the letters stated that the repairs were complete and the vessel was ready for delivery. This letter called upon the Defendants to pay an amount of Rs.33.00 lakhs to Mr Nadkarni (Salvor) in the full and final settlement. 7. Reference was made to Certificate dated 6/3/2003 and the letter dated 13/2/2004. This Certificate and the letters stated that the repairs were complete and the vessel was ready for delivery. This letter called upon the Defendants to pay an amount of Rs.33.00 lakhs to Mr Nadkarni (Salvor) in the full and final settlement. 7. Plaintiff then alleged that the delivery of the insured barge was never handed over by Mr Nadkarni (Salvor) to Plaintiff. Mr Nadkarni (Salvor) raised disputes about further payments. The matter was ultimately referred to arbitration, in which even Plaintiff raised a counter-claim. Eventually, the Arbitrator made an award on 31st March 2006, directing the Plaintiff to pay Mr Nadkarni (Salvor) an amount of Rs.5,28,500/- against delivery of the insured barge. However, Plaintiff's counter-claim against Mr Nadkarni (Salvor) was dismissed. 8. The Plaintiff, in his plaint, which was instituted on 9/9/2008, has alleged that the Defendant-Insurance Company should have verified through its surveyor whether the barge repairs were indeed completed and delivery was made to the Plaintiff. Therefore, because of failure on the part of the Defendants-Insurance Company to do so, Plaintiff has incurred damages and is liable to be compensated. Further, the plaint alleges that the action of the Defendant-Insurance Company to close the file of the Plaintiff's claim vide letter dated 24/4/2006 is arbitrary and perverse. Hence, the suit claiming a decree for Rs.60,00,000/- towards the total insurance amount, a decree of Rs.10,12,37,000/- for loss of business profits, a decree for Rs. 5,28,500/- which the Plaintiff was required to pay to Mr Nadkarni (Salvor) in terms of the arbitration award and finally for a declaration that the letter dated 24/4/2006, closing the Plaintiff's claim file is illegal, arbitrary, perverse, contrary to the contract of insurance and for quashing the same. 9. The Defendants filed their written statement raising several preliminary objections. Even on merits, the Plaintiff's case was squarely denied. In short, the Defendants pleaded that in terms of the contract of insurance, the Plaintiffs were given the option to seek indemnification on a total loss basis or for repairs. The Plaintiffs chose the latter. Further, in terms of the insurance contract, the Plaintiffs had to pay towards repairs and, after that, seek reimbursement. A surveyor was appointed only to ensure excessive claims were not made towards salvage and repairs. The Plaintiffs chose the latter. Further, in terms of the insurance contract, the Plaintiffs had to pay towards repairs and, after that, seek reimbursement. A surveyor was appointed only to ensure excessive claims were not made towards salvage and repairs. The Defendants relied upon letters addressed by Plaintiff jointly with the Salvor and surveyor stating that salvage operations and repairs are complete and the amount of Rs.33.00 lakhs be released to the Defendant-Insurance Company. Relying upon such letters and the representations held out therein, the Defendants released an amount of Rs.29,40,000/-after affecting permissible deductions. Therefore, the contentions about the so-called constrained circumstances were denied. 10. The Plaintiff examined himself, and the Defendants examined Mr Alexander Fernandes, Branch Manager. Both parties produced documentary evidence. Upon evaluating the oral and documentary evidence, the Senior Civil Judge, Vasco-da-Gama, by the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 31/3/2015, dismissed the suit with costs. Hence this Appeal. 11. Mr Mulgaonkar submitted that since the preliminary issues were decided against the Defendants, he would make no submissions on those. He submitted that the Trial Court failed to appreciate the Plaintiff's predicament mainly due to economic duress exercised by Mr Nadkarni (Salvor). He submitted that the letters on which the Trial Court has relied should have been evaluated and appreciated in the context of the constrained circumstances arising due to the economic duress that Plaintiff was forced to suffer. He submitted that the attending circumstances were also not considered by the learned Trial Judge and such non-consideration vitiates the various findings recorded by the learned Trial Judge. On this aspect, Mr Mulgaonkar relied on Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and anr. vs. Brojo Nath Ganguly and anr. AIR 1986 SC 1571 and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ozma Shipping Co. and anr. (2009) 9 SCC 159 12. Mr Mulgaonkar submitted that the surveyor appointed by the Defendants-Insurance Company failed to inspect and verify whether all necessary repairs were indeed carried out to the insured vessel by Nadkarni (Salvor). He submitted that the surveyor also failed to ascertain whether the allegedly repaired vessel was delivered to the Plaintiff, as stated in the joint communications the learned Trial Judge relied upon. He submits that the surveyor was an agent of the Defendants-Insurance Company, and for these omissions on the surveyor's part, the Defendants-Insurance Company must be held liable. He submitted that the surveyor also failed to ascertain whether the allegedly repaired vessel was delivered to the Plaintiff, as stated in the joint communications the learned Trial Judge relied upon. He submits that the surveyor was an agent of the Defendants-Insurance Company, and for these omissions on the surveyor's part, the Defendants-Insurance Company must be held liable. He submitted that even this aspect was not adequately considered by the learned Trial Judge, thereby vitiating the impugned Judgment and Decree. 13. Mr Mulgaonkar finally submitted that the learned Trial Judge failed to appreciate that the evidence on record, at the highest, suggested the completion of works concerning Phase-I. However, there is no evidence of the completion of Phase II works. Yet, without proper verification or report of their surveyor, the Defendants-Insurance Company erred in paying the amount of Rs.29,40,000/- directly to Mr Nadkarni (Salvor). Mr Mulgaonkar submitted that these were public monies and the Defendants-Insurance Company should have acted with utmost circumspection before such payment was directly released to Mr Nadkarni (Salvor). He submitted that such release enabled Mr Nadkarni (Salvor) to illegally retain possession of the insured vessel until the Plaintiffs agreed to the excessive and unlawful demands for extra payments. Mr Mulgaonkar submitted that even this aspect had not been adequately considered by the learned Trial Judge, thereby vitiating the findings in the impugned Judgment and Decree. 14. Based on the above contentions, Mr Mulgaonkar submitted that the impugned Judgment and Decree must be set aside and the suit, as instituted by the Plaintiff, decreed with costs. 15. Mr Timble defended the impugned Judgment and Decree based on the reasoning reflected therein. He submitted that there were no pleadings about economic duress. In any case, there are no allegations of economic duress against Defendant. He offered that Plaintiff admitted during cross-examination that it was his duty first to pay the Salvor and then claim the amount from the Insurance Company. He submits that even the Arbitrator, in his Award concerning the dispute between the Plaintiffs and the Salvor, has observed that the Defendant, by way of a good gesture, paid the amount of Rs.29,40,000/- directly to the Salvor. Mr Timble pointed out that such a payment was at the express written request of the Plaintiff and after the same was certified by the surveyor. Mr Timble pointed out that such a payment was at the express written request of the Plaintiff and after the same was certified by the surveyor. He submitted that the claims in the suit are ex-facie frivolous, and the learned Trial Judge, upon evaluating the documentary and oral evidence, correctly dismissed the suit, with costs. 16. Mr Timble submitted that the Plaintiffs did not bother to challenge the adverse Award. The Plaintiff had filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration Act seeking some reliefs, inter alia, against Mr Nadkarni (Salvor). Even the same was dismissed for want of jurisdiction. Plaintiff did not bother to challenge such dismissal or institute an appropriate application before a proper forum against Mr Nadkarni (Salvor). Most of the allegations in the suit are against Mr Nadkarni (Salvor), who was not even impleaded as a party in the suit, possibly fearing the bar of res judicata. Mr Timble submits that these are sufficient grounds to sustain the dismissal of the suit. He presented that the Trial Court should have dismissed the suit for non-joinder of the necessary party, i.e. Mr Nadkarni (Salvor). 17. For all the above reasons, Mr Timble submitted that this Appeal may be dismissed with costs. 18. Based on the rival contentions, pleadings, and the findings in the impugned Judgment and Decree, the following points arise for determination in this Appeal : (a) Whether the pleadings and the evidence on record make out any case of economic duress sufficient for the Plaintiff to disown the contents of letters dated 6/3/2003, 7/3/2003, 10/3/2003, 12/3/2003, 19/3/2003, 29/3/2003, 21/4/2003, 4/4/2003 and 13/2/2004? (b) Whether any breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the Defendant-Insurance Company was established by Plaintiff, thereby giving a cause of action for claiming the damages and compensation. (c) Whether the Defendants-Insurance Company, after payment of Rs.29,40,000/- towards salvage and repairs of the insured vessel, was justified in closing the Plaintiff's claim file vide letter dated 24/4/2006? (d) Whether, assuming the Plaintiff establishes any breach on the Defendants' part, is entitled to the monetary reliefs over Rs.10.77 crores claimed in the plaint? 19. There was no dispute about the vessel being insured and the insurance policy being in force on 3/2/2003, on which date the insured vessel grounded accidentally in the Zuari river. (d) Whether, assuming the Plaintiff establishes any breach on the Defendants' part, is entitled to the monetary reliefs over Rs.10.77 crores claimed in the plaint? 19. There was no dispute about the vessel being insured and the insurance policy being in force on 3/2/2003, on which date the insured vessel grounded accidentally in the Zuari river. There is also no dispute that an option was given by the Defendant-Insurance Company to Plaintiff about indemnification on a total loss basis or towards the expenses for salvage and repairs. Finally, there is no dispute that Plaintiff opted for indemnification towards salvage and repairs and took steps accordingly. 20. The insurance policy contemplates the insured paying towards the salvage and repairs at the first instance and the Defendant-Insurance Company then reimbursing such amount to the Plaintiff. No doubt, the contract contemplates the appointment of a surveyor by the Insurance Company to assess the potential damage and, consequently, expenses towards salvage and repairs. 21. Accordingly, a surveyor was appointed by the Defendant-Insurance Company. After inviting tenders/quotes, Plaintiff selected the lowest bidder Mr Kishor Nadkarni (Salvor), to undertake the salvage and repairs to the insured vessel. A separate agreement was signed between the Plaintiff and Mr Kishor Nadkarni (Salvor) containing, among other things, an arbitration clause. The Defendant-Insurance Company was not a party to this salvage/repairs agreement. 22. In terms of the salvage agreements dated 8/2/2003 and 18/2/2003, salvage and repair works were to be completed in two phases. The first phase was offloading the iron ore fines and moving the vessel alongside the river bank within seven days. For this, Plaintiff was to pay the Salvor an amount of Rs.20,00,000/-. The second phase was re-floating the insured vessel and delivering it in repaired and upright conditions at the Cabral Dry docks at Quellossim within 20 days. For phase II, Plaintiff was to pay the Salvor an amount of Rs.13,00,000/-. 23. The salvage agreement provided several terms and conditions, including that the Salvor shall have a maritime lien on the salvaged vessel and cargo till the remuneration is fully paid to the Salvor by the Plaintiff. Additionally, there were provisions for penalties in the salvage agreement. 24. Plaintiff, in his cross-examination, specifically admitted that in terms of the contract for insurance (insurance policy), Plaintiff had first to pay the Salvor, and only after that the amount paid was to be reimbursed by the Defendant-Insurance Company. Additionally, there were provisions for penalties in the salvage agreement. 24. Plaintiff, in his cross-examination, specifically admitted that in terms of the contract for insurance (insurance policy), Plaintiff had first to pay the Salvor, and only after that the amount paid was to be reimbursed by the Defendant-Insurance Company. He also admitted having instructed the Defendant-Insurance Company to pay the Salvor directly because Plaintiff could not make such payments to the Salvor and secure the delivery of the salvaged vessel. This portion of the Plaintiff's evidence reads as follows : "..I identify in para 54 it is stated that the entire salvage charges were paid to the Defendant in full and final settlement. It is true that payment has to be paid first by the Plaintiff and then the amount is to be reimbursed by the Defendant. It is true that I have instructed the Defendant to make the payment as I was unable to do so." [emphasis supplied] 25. Regards the first point for determination, the letters referred to therein have been exhibited and, therefore, are a part of the documentary evidence on record. The letter dated 6/3/2003 (Exhibit-58) is like a certificate signed by Mr Kishor Nadkarni (Salvor) and the Plaintiff. This certifies that the Salvor has completed the first phase of the works in terms of the salvage agreement. Further, this Certificate certifies that both parties have duly accepted re-flotation and afloat condition and the same is duly inspected by the attending surveyor. 26. In the context of the above letter/communication dated 6/3/2003, the Plaintiff at, in paragraph 11 of the plaint, has pleaded as follows : "11. The Plaintiff states that the Plaintiff was told by the salver Mr Nadkarni to sign the Certificate prepared by him which is dated 6.3.2003 under constrained circumstances." 27. By communication dated 7/3/2003 (Exhibit 59), Plaintiff informed Defendant-Insurance Company that the surveyor had completed Phase I of the contract between the Salvor and Plaintiff. This communication requires the defendant insurance company to treat the same as notice of claim for salvage remuneration of Rs.20,00,000/- and make arrangements to settle the same at its earliest. This communication bears the signatures of the Plaintiff. Regards this communication (Exhibit 59), there are no pleadings about any economic duress. 28. The communications dated 10/3/2003 (Exhibit 60) and 12/3/2003 (Exhibit 61) are to the same effect. This communication bears the signatures of the Plaintiff. Regards this communication (Exhibit 59), there are no pleadings about any economic duress. 28. The communications dated 10/3/2003 (Exhibit 60) and 12/3/2003 (Exhibit 61) are to the same effect. Both these communications reiterate that Phase-I works, valued at Rs..20.00 lakhs, were complete. Further, phase II works, valued at Rs. 13.00 lakhs, will also be completed within two days. Again, both these letters have been signed by Plaintiff, and there are no pleadings or allegations about economic duress from any sources. 29. By a communication dated 19/3/2003 ( Exhibit-62), Plaintiff informed Defendant that phase II works would be completed at any time within 2-3 days. Therefore, the defendants must take necessary action to pay the Salvor at the earliest. Again, even in the context of this communication, there are no pleadings about economic duress from any sources. 30. By the communication dated 29/3/2003 (Exhibit 63), Plaintiff urged the Defendant-Insurance Company to either release the amount of Rs.20.00 lakhs directly to the Salvor or to issue a suitable letter of guarantee of payment as requested by the Salvor. Again, there is no hint of any economic duress so far as this communication is concerned. 31. By communication dated 30/05/2003 addressed by Mr Nadkarni (Salvor) to the Defendant-Insurance Company, the Salvor pointed out that he has completed the salvage operations and, therefore, the Insurance Company must directly make payments to him. Along with this letter, Mr Nadkarni enclosed a copy of the letter dated 8/2/2003 addressed by the Madgaum Urban Co-op. Bank Ltd. to the Plaintiff consenting to the salvage of the insured vessel, which was hypothecated with the bank. 32. By communication dated 21/4/003 (Exhibit 65-colly), Plaintiff forwarded a certificate of completion of salvage work duly certified by the surveyor appointed by the Defendant-Insurance Company. This communication states that the insured vessel is by the side of the nominated dry dock awaiting salvage remuneration of Rs.33,00,000/-. This communication then authorizes the Insurance Company to pay the amount of Rs.33,00,000/- to the Salvor directly or issue a letter of commitment so that the Salvor can deliver the vessel for dry docking. This communication urges the Insurance Company to treat this matter as most urgent. To this letter was enclosed a certificate of completion dated 4/4/2003. 33. This communication then authorizes the Insurance Company to pay the amount of Rs.33,00,000/- to the Salvor directly or issue a letter of commitment so that the Salvor can deliver the vessel for dry docking. This communication urges the Insurance Company to treat this matter as most urgent. To this letter was enclosed a certificate of completion dated 4/4/2003. 33. The Certificate of completion dated 4/4/2003 (Exhibit-65 colly) is signed by the Plaintiff, Mr Nadkarni (Salvor), and the attending surveyor. This Certificate is most important and, therefore, its contents are transcribed below for the convenience of reference: " Kishor D. Nadkarni H.No.11, Povacao P.O. Benaulim Goa - 403716 Tel 2788934/2780786 - 4th April 2003 Certificate of Completion This is to certify that the cargo from "M.V.VARUN" vessel's cargo hold has been pumped out/grabbed into other barges, repaired as found necessary re-floated and brought by the side clearing the channel on 6th March, 2003, thus completing the first phase of the nature of services rendered by us as per clause number 9 of the salvage agreement dated 18th February, 2003. It is further certified that the re-floated above vessel has been strengthened to undertake tow, towed to a safer place on 3rd April, 2003, and is kept ready for delivery in stable, upright and afloat condition. As mutually agreed between the two of us, this contract of salvage has been performed subject to conditions contained in said above agreement. The vessel's delivery at your nominated yard, namely Shirodkar Shipyard(Dry Docks) Rassaim, is awaiting for want of salvage remuneration comprising Rs.20 lakhs for first phase and Rs.13 lakhs for the second phase not including safe keeping, idle charges and barge hire charges. Salvor Owner R.B.Shipping Sd/- Sd/- Kishor D. Nadkarni Mr. Rajendra Bakle Certified the above to be true to the best of our knowledge and belief and, we put out signature at their request without prejudice to the interests of all parties concerned. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Margao - 403 601 GOA For J.B. Boda Surveyors Pvt.Ltd. Sd/- Attending Surveyor" 34. By a communication dated 13/2/2004 (Exhibit-66), Mr Nadkarni (Salvor) and the Plaintiff acknowledged receipt of Rs.29,40,000/- towards salvage charges. Further, they confirmed that the barge is now in the custody of Plaintiff in terms of the salvage agreement. National Insurance Co. Ltd. Margao - 403 601 GOA For J.B. Boda Surveyors Pvt.Ltd. Sd/- Attending Surveyor" 34. By a communication dated 13/2/2004 (Exhibit-66), Mr Nadkarni (Salvor) and the Plaintiff acknowledged receipt of Rs.29,40,000/- towards salvage charges. Further, they confirmed that the barge is now in the custody of Plaintiff in terms of the salvage agreement. Again, this communication is important, and the same is transcribed below for the convenience of reference: " Kishor D. Nadkarni H.N. Povacao P.O. Benaulim Goa - 403716 Tel 2788934/2780786 - 13.02.2003 To The Branch Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd. Margao Sir, Re: Release of Barge M.V. VARUN for repair to M/s. R.B. SHIPPING In consequence of having received an On Account payment of Rs.29,40,000/ (Rupees Twenty Nine lakhs Forty thousand only) towards the salvage charges of barge M.V. VARUN: I the undersigned Shri Kishor D. Nadkarni hereby confirm that in compliance with your request and salvage contract dated i8 February 2003, between the owners of the barge, M/s R.B. SHIPPING and myself, the aforesaid barge so far in my custody is being released this day 13th February, 2004, to the owners for repairs. Further, in confirmation to the barge being received now in their custody as per the terms of the salvage agreement, the owners hereto set their seal of confirmation. Owner of Barge Salvor For R.B.Shipping Sd/- Sd/- (Kishor D. Nadkarni) Proprietor." 35. Thus, except for the letter/ communication 6/3/2003, regards other letters/communications dated 7/3/2003, 10/3/2003, 12/3/2003, 19/3/2003, 29/3/2003, 21/4/2003, 4/4/2003 and 13/2/2004, there are no pleadings about all such letters/communications having been issued under any economic duress or the so-called constrained circumstances. Even in the context of the letter/communication dated 6/3/2003, as noted earlier, the only pleading is that the Salvor Mr Nadkarni told the Plaintiff to sign the dated Certificate prepared by him 6/3/2003 "under constrained circumstances". 36. Based on the total absence of pleadings regarding all but one of the communications dated 6/3/2003 and blissfully inadequate and vague pleadings concerning the letter/communication dated 6/3/2003, no case of any economic duress was made out. Besides, even the evidence on record makes out no such case of economic duress, assuming that any evidence that travels beyond the pleadings could ever be considered. Further, there are no allegations of any economic duress against Defendant. Besides, even the evidence on record makes out no such case of economic duress, assuming that any evidence that travels beyond the pleadings could ever be considered. Further, there are no allegations of any economic duress against Defendant. Still, the vague and slight allegations are directed against Salvor, selected by the Plaintiff, who was not even a party to the suit. 37. Plaintiff, in his cross-examination only in the context of the Certificate of completion dated 4/4/2003 (Exhibit-65 colly), firstly admitted that Mr Nadkarni (Salvor) and Plaintiff had signed the Certificate of completion. Plaintiff then voluntarily stated that he was forced to sign the same. However, soon after this, Plaintiff admitted having signed the letter dated 13/2/2004 at Exhibit-66 along with Mr Nadkarni (Salvor). Regarding this letter, Plaintiff did not allege that he was forced to sign the same. So also regards other letters/ communications, Plaintiff admitted his signatures and did not even allege that he was forced to sign such letters, thereby hinting at any economic duress, as urged by Mr Mulgaonkar. 38. Pollock & Mulla on The Indian Contract Act, 1892 referred to North Ocean Shipping v. Hyundai Construction Co. Ltd. [1978] 3 All ER 1170. That case involved a shipbuilding contract, in which the price was to be paid in US dollars. On the devaluation of the dollar, the builders demanded corresponding increase in installments of price remaining unpaid and threatened to terminate the contract. After some time, the owners agreed to pay the increased price without protest and the builders agreed to increase the amount of the letter of credit for repayment. When the vessel was ready, the Owners took delivery of the Vessel without protest. They then laid claim to the return of the increase in price on the ground of economic duress which made the contract voidable. It was held that the agreement was voidable. But as the owners had affirmed the contract by failing to protest, the owners were not entitled to the return of the increase. 39. Pollock & Mulla, referred to several decided cases to the limits on the use of the doctrine of economic duress. First, the threat must be strongly coercive, leaving the innocent party with no effective alternative but to submit. Secondly, the challenge should come at the outset and the innocent party should take the immediate opportunity to thrash out the issue in the court. 40. First, the threat must be strongly coercive, leaving the innocent party with no effective alternative but to submit. Secondly, the challenge should come at the outset and the innocent party should take the immediate opportunity to thrash out the issue in the court. 40. In any case, Plaintiff alleges no economic duress for any reasons attributable to the Defendant-Insurance Company. Such an allegation is not to be found in the pleadings or the evidence. The allegations, vague as they may be, are mainly against Mr Nadkarni (Salvor). Based upon such vague and inadequate allegations backed by no proof whatsoever against Mr Nadkarni (Salvor), Plaintiff cannot allege any deficiency on the part of Defendant-Insurance Company and raise a claim of over Rs.10.77 crores. Therefore, the entire structure or foundation of Plaintiff's claim appears misconceived. 41. The evidence on record clearly shows that the Defendant-Insurance Company released the payment to Mr Nadkarni (Salvor) at the repeated insistence of Plaintiff. Such amount was released after the Plaintiff, and the surveyor appointed by the Defendan-Insurance Company certified that all salvage and repair works were complete in all respects. Mr Mulgaonkar's contention that the Defendant-Insurance Company should have disbelieved all that Plaintiff said and verified whether salvage operations and repairs were completed is, with respect, misconceived. 42. Initially, it was urged that the surveyor appointed by the defendant-Insurance Company failed to verify the contents of the certificates or correspondence jointly addressed by Plaintiff and Salvor. However, both oral and documentary evidence establishes that the surveyor did verify the position about the completion of salvage and repairs to the insured vessel. Thus construed, it is apparent that Plaintiff's claim was entirely frivolous and, in any case, Plaintiff has failed to establish any breach on the part of the Defendant-Insurance Company, entitling Plaintiff to any damages or compensation from the Defendant-Insurance Company. 43. As noted earlier, in his evidence, Plaintiff expressly admitted that under the insurance policy, Plaintiff was required to pay the amount first to the Salvor and then be entitled to reimbursement from the Defendant-Insurance Company. Yet, as a good gesture, the Defendant-Insurance Company, at the express request in writing from Plaintiff, paid the total and final settlement amount to Mr Nadkarni (Salvor). Yet, as a good gesture, the Defendant-Insurance Company, at the express request in writing from Plaintiff, paid the total and final settlement amount to Mr Nadkarni (Salvor). This was more so because Plaintiff repeatedly pursued this matter of direct payment and claimed that he had no financial means to pay the Salvor for the salvage and repairs to the insured vessel. The Plaintiff, in his cross-examination, admitted that he instructed the Defendant-Insurance Company to make payments to the Salvor because he could not do so. After all this, there was neither cause of action nor justification to sue Defendant. 44. Mr Mulgaonkar contended that if the various communications signed by Plaintiff reflected the true and correct position, then there was no question of the Arbitrator Capt. E.G. Viegas, in his Award dated 31/3/2006, directing Mr Nadkarni (Salvor) to deliver the barge to the dry dock with immediate effect. This contention cannot be accepted, mainly when the Award dated 31/3/2006 is read and construed in its entirety. 45. In any case, Plaintiff, after repeatedly holding out to Defendant that all works were complete and based on such clear representation persuading Defendant to pay Rs 29.40 Lakhs to Salvor on Plaintiff's account, was estopped from resiling his position and even denying the truth of the representations, he repeatedly held out. The Award dated 31/3/2006 records that "It was indeed a gesture of goodwill shown by the Insurance Company to make an "On Account" payment of Rs.29.4 lakhs to help out the Respondents in this case". 46. The above Award was in the context of the disputes between the Plaintiff and Mr Nadkarni (Salvor). Although the Defendant-Insurance Company was neither a party to the salvage agreements nor the arbitration proceedings, the Award partially accepted Mr Nadkarni's (savlor) case. Accordingly, it directed Plaintiff to pay a further amount of Rs.5,28,500/-. Significantly, this Award was never challenged by Plaintiff. Instead, almost two years after this Award was made, Plaintiff has chosen to institute the suit against the Defendant-Insurance Company. Therefore, Mr Timble is justified in contending that the so-called cause of action and claims for damages and compensation are entirely frivolous. 47. The ratio in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. (supra) is not even remotely attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. As noted earlier, Plaintiff has failed to make out any case of economic duress. 47. The ratio in Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. (supra) is not even remotely attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present case. As noted earlier, Plaintiff has failed to make out any case of economic duress. In any case, Plaintiff was alleging (vaguely) economic duress against Mr Nadkarni (Salvor) and not against the Defendant-Insurance Company. The dispute with Mr Nadkarni (Salvor) was the subject matter of the arbitration proceedings, culminating in the arbitral Award dated 31/3/2006. Most of the Plaintiff's contentions were rejected. The Award directs the Plaintiff to pay an amount of Rs.5,28,500/- to Mr Nadkarni (Salvor). 48. The Plaintiff was a barge owner. This was not some contract between a powerful employer and a poor employee. At the cost of repetition, there is not even any allegation that the Defendant-Insurance Company practised any economic duress upon Plaintiff at any stage. Thus, the ratio of the decision cited does not even remotely apply. 49. Further, Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. (supra) was a case concerning the validity of service rules which entitled a mighty Corporation answering the definition of "The State" under Article 12 of the Constitution to terminate the services of its permanent employee without giving any reason and by giving notice. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, taking cognizance of the inequality of bargaining power between the humble employee and the mighty State, held that such a provision is void under Section 23 of the Contract Act and ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Such an issue does not even remotely arise in the facts of the present case for the reasons discussed above. 50. Similarly, in Ozma Shipping Company (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that after the insurer's surveyor valued the insured vessel, the Insurance Company should not have hesitated in paying the amount when it was an undisputed fact that the vessel sunk with the entire cargo. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that service was deficient in such circumstances. Therefore, it directed the Insurance Company to settle the claim for Rs. 21,50,000/-, with interest at 12% per annum. 51. In Ozma Shipping Company (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Insurance Company must settle genuine and bona fide claims without resorting to unnecessary litigation. Accordingly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that service was deficient in such circumstances. Therefore, it directed the Insurance Company to settle the claim for Rs. 21,50,000/-, with interest at 12% per annum. 51. In Ozma Shipping Company (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Insurance Company must settle genuine and bona fide claims without resorting to unnecessary litigation. The Court held that the insurance company, in genuine and bona fide claims of insurance, must not adopt an attitude of avoiding payments on one pretext or the other. Such an attitude puts a serious question mark on the credibility and trustworthiness of the insurance companies. Furthermore, insurers can save heavy litigation costs and interest liability by adopting an honest approach and attitude. 52. In the present case, the Insurance Company has settled the claim under the insurance policy by paying for salvage and repairs. Admittedly, the Defendant-Insurance Company, at the express written request of Plaintiff, paid an amount of Rs.29,40,000/- to Mr Nadkarni (Salvor) for the salvage and repairs undertaken by him to the insured vessel. Therefore, this is not a case where the Defendant-Insurance Company either avoided or delayed the settlement of the claim. 53. Despite all this, Plaintiff has involved the Defendant-Insurance Company in this frivolous litigation after failing in the arbitration proceedings against Mr Nadkarni (Salvor). Even in this case, most allegations are against Mr Nadkarni (Salvor) even though Mr Nadkarni (Salvor) was not impleaded a party to the suit. The dispute between Plaintiff and Mr Nadkarni (Salvor) is. Therefore, the ratio or the observations in Ozma Shipping Company (supra) do not even remotely apply to the fact situation in the present matter. 54. For all the above reasons, the first point for determination, based upon economic duress, has to be answered against the Appellant-Plaintiff. 55. Regards the second point for determination, even the same will have to be answered against Plaintiff. From a perusal of the plaint, it is pretty clear that there are no proper or precise allegations about the breach or the nature of the violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the Defendant-Insurance Company. 55. Regards the second point for determination, even the same will have to be answered against Plaintiff. From a perusal of the plaint, it is pretty clear that there are no proper or precise allegations about the breach or the nature of the violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the Defendant-Insurance Company. All that Mr Mulgaonkar argued was that the surveyor of the Defendant-Insurance Company should have verified whether the salvage and repair works were indeed concluded satisfactorily by Mr Nadkarni (Salvor) and, further, whether Mr Nadkarni (Salvor) had delivered the possession of the insured vessel to the Plaintiff. In addition, Mr Mulgaonkar argued that the Defendant-Insurance Company erred in relying upon the several communications addressed by Plaintiff to the effect that the salvage and repair operations were complete. He also submitted that the communication referred to only the completion of Phase I and not Phase II of the salvage agreements. 56. Neither the allegations in the plaint nor Mr Mulgaonkar's contention refer to or make out any case of breach of any of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. In any case, the contention, with respect, is devoid of any merit. The Plaintiff, after repeatedly informing the insurance company that all works have been satisfactorily concluded and based upon such repeated representations, having succeeded in persuading the Defendant-Insurance Company to pay the amount of Rs.29,40,000/- directly to Mr Nadkarni (Salvor), cannot now turn around and urge that the surveyor should have independently verified the position or that the position was otherwise. Plaintiff cannot found a cause of action on approbation and reprobation. Such a cause cannot pass muster in Law or equity. Even factually, such a cause is not proved by Plaintiff. 57. The record, in any case, establishes that even the surveyor appointed by the Defendant-Insurance Company did verify the position and certified that salvage and repair operations were complete in all respects. Furthermore, it is only based upon the Certificate jointly signed by Plaintiff, Mr Nadkarni (Salvor) and the surveyor that the amount was, at the instance of Plaintiff, directly paid to Mr Nadkarni (Salvor). Thus, no case of a breach on the part of the Defendant-Insurance Company has been made out by Plaintiff. Therefore, even the second point for determination will have to be decided against Plaintiff. 58. Thus, no case of a breach on the part of the Defendant-Insurance Company has been made out by Plaintiff. Therefore, even the second point for determination will have to be decided against Plaintiff. 58. The third point of determination will also have to be decided against Plaintiff because Plaintiff failed to establish any breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy by the Defendant-Insurance Company. The Plaintiff's claim was for Rs.33.00 lakhs. The insurance company paid Mr Nadkarni (Salvor), at the express written request of the Plaintiff, an amount of Rs.29,40,000/-. This difference was due to the deductions that the insurance policy permitted the Defendant-Insurance Company to effect. In the plaint, there is no challenge to these deductions. 59. In any case, Plaintiff failed to establish how these deductions amounted to any breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Instead, the correspondence on record shows that Plaintiff was satisfied with the payment of Rs.29,40,000/- to Mr Nadkarni (Salvor). It was only after Plaintiff lost in the arbitration proceedings initiated by him against Mr Nadkarni (Salvor) that Plaintiff thought of alleging breaches by the Defendant-Insurance Company and raising the absurd claim of over Rs.10.77 crores. After payment of Rs.29,40,000/-, the Insurance Company was justified in closing the Plaintiff's claim file vide letter dated 24/4/2006. There was nothing arbitrary or unlawful in closing the claim file. The third point for determination will also have to be answered against the Appellant-Plaintiff. 60. Considering the above discussion, it is apparent that even the fourth point for determination will have to be answered against the Appellant-Plaintiff. However, as noted earlier, Plaintiff failed to establish any breach on Defendant's part. Therefore, there is no question of the Plaintiff being entitled to any monetary reliefs, much less financial relief of Rs.10.77 crores from the Defendant-Insurance Company. 61. The Trial Court has duly considered the oral and documentary evidence on record. The findings are consistent with the record. In any case, we have independently evaluated the record. Therefore, no case is made out to interfere with the impugned judgement and decree. 62. Apart from the above contentions, no contentions were raised before us. Therefore, considering the above discussion and based on the above reasoning, this Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, this Appeal is dismissed with costs.