SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Chh) 303

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J.
Balaji Power (A unit of Hira Ferro Alloys Ltd) A company registered under the Companies Act of 1956 – Appellant
Versus
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Respondents
Arbitration Request No. 19 of 2020
Decided on : 01-07-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is that a dispute over the quantum to be paid under an insurance policy, where the liability is admitted but the quantum is disputed, is referrable to arbitration.

Headnote:

Arbitration - Insurance Claim - Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 11(5) and (6) - Industrial All Risk Policy - Companies Act, 1956 - Policy No. 311800/11/2019/322 - Clause 12 of the Industrial All Risk Insurance Policy

Fact of the Case:

The applicant, a power generation company, submitted an insurance claim for a fire incident. The respondent, an insurance company, assessed the loss at a lower amount than claimed, leading to a dispute over the quantum to be paid under the policy. The applicant invoked the arbitration clause, but the respondent declined to appoint an arbitrator.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the dispute over the quantum to be paid under the policy was referrable to arbitration, as the liability was admitted by the respondent, and the dispute related to the assessed loss. The court appointed a retired District Judge as the Sole Arbitrator between the parties.

Issues: Dispute over the quantum to be paid under the insurance policy, refusal of the respondent to appoint an arbitrator, interpretation of Clause 12 of the Industrial All Risk Insurance Policy.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the dispute raised by the applicant was referrable to arbitration, as the liability was admitted by the respondent, and the dispute related to the quantum of the assessed loss. The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Clause 12 of the Industrial All Risk Insurance Policy.

Final Decision: The court appointed a retired District Judge as the Sole Arbitrator between the parties, allowing the arbitration application.

JUDGMENT :

This is an application under Sections 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, Act of 1996) for appointment of Arbitrator.

2. Heard Mr. Ankit Singhal, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. Raj Awasthi, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent.

3. The applicant is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in generation of power. The applicant had an ‘Industrial All Risk Policy’ bearing Policy No. 311800/11/2019/322 insuring the plant of the applicant from 17.07.2018 to midnight of 16.07.2019 with the respondent, on a premium of Rs. 2,87,004/- per year.

4. On 17.12.2018, a fire incident broke out in the plant of the applicant and in connection with the loss that had occasioned, the applicant had submitted its claim under the insurance policy in question amounting to Rs. 41,88,980/-. The incident was reported to the respondent on the date of incident itself and pursuant thereto, a Surveyor, namely, Gautam Basu was deputed by the respondent to conduct inspection of the plant. The survey report was submitted on 05.02.2019 and according to the survey report, the net loss assessed was Rs. 4,82,164/-. It was also opined by the Surveyor that as the net assessed loss is less than the policy excess, the insurer does not have any liability. On the basis of the report of the Surveyor, a letter dated 26.12.2019 was issued to the applicant by the Senior Divisional Manager of the respondent, which is as follows:

    “By Registered post

26th December, 2019

M/s. Balaji Power Ltd.

Gram-Belsonda,

Murhena Road,

Distt. - Mahasamund

Raipur 493445

Chhattisgarh. 3

Dear Sir,

Re: Claim under Policy No. 311800/11/ 2019/322

Claim No. 311800/11/2019/000051 A/c. Balaji Power Ltd. dt. of loss 17/12/2018

With the reference to above claim, this is to state that, we had deputed Mr. Gautam Basu as surveyor for the above loss. The surveyor has submitted his report.

The Surveyor Report mentions the Net Assessed Loss at Rs. 4,82,164/- after deduction of Salvage which is less than the minimum Policy Excess of Rs. 5 Lacs. Hence, the net liability comes for the Insurer amounts to NIL.

The assessment sheet is attached herewith for reference.

Based on the assessment, the claim is treated as “No Claim” and the file is treated as closed.

Thanking you

Sincerely yours,

Sd/- Illegible

Sr. Divisional Manager”

5. The applicant sent a legal notice to the respondent on 11.06.2020 in terms of Clause No. 12 of the Industrial All Risk Insurance Policy, which provided for invoking arbitration clause and suggested the name of an Arbitrator from the side of the applicant. Request was made to the respondent to nominate a second Arbitrator within 30 days. In response, a letter dated 13.07.2020 declining the request of the applicant was issued by the respondent. The applicant was further requested to withdraw the notice dated 11.06.2020 requesting for nomination of Arbitrator.

6. Mr. Singhal submits that in terms of Clause 12 of the Industrial All Risk Insurance Policy, if any difference arises as to the quantum to be paid under the policy, such difference shall independently of all other questions be referred to the decision of an arbitrator in the manner as provided therein. However, if the liability is not admitted, the dispute shall not be referable to arbitration.

7. Since the applicant had claimed an amount of Rs. 41,88,980/- and the respondent, relying upon the report of the Surveyor, came to the conclusion that there was loss of only Rs. 4,82,164/-, it is a dispute of quantum to be paid and therefore, refusal to appoint arbitrator by the respondent is not tenable in law and therefore, this Court may appoint arbitrator.

8. Relying upon the reply affidavit filed, Mr. Awasthi submits that while the Surveyor had assessed the amount of net loss to the tune of Rs. 4,82,164/-, an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- is to be deducted towards policy excess on each and every claim as per the insurance policy condition and therefore, it is

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top