Civitect India Private Limited vs The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 141 Cal/2

ORDER SHEET

                                AP No. 333 of 2020

                       IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                        Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction
                                 ORIGINAL SIDE


                       CIVITECT INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED
                                   Versus
                      THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.


  BEFORE:
  The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE
  Date : February 11, 2021.
  ( Via Video Conference )

                                                                       Appearance:
                                                               Mr. N. Rakshit, Adv.
                                                                ...for the Petitioner

                                                            Mr. Rajesh Singh, Adv.
                                                             ...for the Respondent

The Court : Affidavit-of-service filed in Court today be kept with the record.

The petitioner asks for appointment of an arbitrator in terms of an

arbitration clause contained in an insurance policy issued in its favour by the

respondent.

The respondent says that the petitioner's claim has been rejected since the

same falls within the "policy-excess". On that ground, the petitioner's claim has

been treated as "no-claim". The respondent relies on the judgment of the

Supreme Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. Narbheram Power and

Steel Private Limited [(2018) 6 SCC 534] in support of its contention that where

the insurance company totally denies its liability and the dispute is not merely

with regard to the quantum of liability, the same would fall outside the purview of

the arbitration clause. In the present case, it appears that the "policy-excess" was

quantified by the respondent at Rs.45 lakhs. The net assessed loss allegedly

suffered by the petitioner is beyond Rs.45 lakhs. Hence, the stand of the

respondent that the insurance company has treated the petitioner's claim as "no-

claim" is difficult to accept. Learned advocate for the respondent says that it was

a typographical mistake in the policy that the "policy-excess" was quantified as

Rs.45 lakhs. As per the circulars of Tariff Advisory Committee as also the head

office of the insurance company, the "policy-excess" could not have been

quantified at a sum less than Rs.75 lakhs.

It is difficult to reject the petitioner's case for reference of disputes to

arbitration for some mistake allegedly committed by the insurance company.

However, at the request of Mr. Singh, learned Advocate for the respondent, I

adjourn this matter for a week to enable him to obtain better instructions.

(ARIJIT BANERJEE, J.)

sg.