Arbitral awards can be set aside only for patent illegality or public policy violations, not mere erroneous application of law or re-appreciation of evidence.

JUDGMENT :

K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J.

1.The appellant herein prefer these appeals against the orders dated 10.03.2020 passed by this Court in O.P.Nos.653 & 651 of 2019 which was filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (herein after referred to ''The Act'') by the appellant herein.

The facts leading to file the present Original Side Appeal in O.S.A.No.187 of 2020 are as follows:

2.The appellant had issued a standard fire and special perils policy( herein after referred to ''Policy'') for a period of 12 months commencing from 05.06.2015 to the respondent which covered the respondent's property located at No.161, Anna Salai, Little Mount, Saidapet, Chennai. The total insured sum was Rs.7 Crores. The brake up of the insured sum was as follows:

3.Subsequent to damage having been caused due to the Chennai floods of 2015, the respondent sent a claim intimation letter to the appellant on 03.12.2015 informing them that the property had suffered severe damage on 02.12.2015. The appellant then appointed a Surveyor on 08.12.2015 and the same was informed to the respondent.

4.The Surveyor on 29.12.2015 shared the working assessment of the loss which was Rs.35,00,000/-.

5.Since the insurance policy contemplated assessment of the loss to be made on the basis of reinstatement method of valuation which required the insured to reinstate the property to the way it was prior to the damage having taken place and submit the bills of the cost incurred for reinstatement to the insurer within 12 months from the date of claim intimation and since the respondent fails to submit all the necessary documents required by the Surveyor to complete assessment of the claim, the representatives of the appellant and the respondent met on 04.04.2016 to discuss various aspects of the claim. In the said meeting, the difference between reinstatement valuation and market valuation was explained to the representatives of the respondent who then requested for the faster method of valuation i.e., market valuation method.

6.As it was consented by the respondent that the assessment could be carried out on the basis of market valuation and not reinstatement. After having been explained the difference between the two methods of valuation, an email was sent by the appellant to that effect on 04.04.2016. However, no representative of the respondent replied to the said email and did not raise any issue with the appellant citing the amendment of the method of loss assessment.

7.The Surveyor submitted his assessment of loss on 12.04.2016 after adjusting depreciation, salvage, and under insurance and not including the damaged portions of the property. The amount was Rs.67,92,046/-.

8.The respondent failed to provide their concurrence on the assessment despite reminders sent to them on 02.05.2016, 10.05.2016 and 17.05.2016. The respondent vide letter dated 18.05.2016 raised a demand of Rs.5 Crores without any document to substantiate their claim and again on 17.06.2016 revised its demand to 12.31 crores. On 29.06.2016 the appellant replied to the respondent that the assessment made by the surveyor is most reasonable and correct one. The surveyor released its final survey report assessing the