Delhi High Court
Jindal India Limited vs The Oriental Insurance Company ... on 17 September, 2021
$~3
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 17.09.2021
+ ARB.P. 781/2021
JINDAL INDIA LIMITED ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ishaan Chhaya, Advocate
Versus
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED
.....Respondent
Through: Ms. Sakshi Gupta, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
J U D G M E N T (oral)
1. The present petition has been preferred on behalf of petitioner seeking
appointment of sole Arbitrator under the provisions of Section 11(6) of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. Petitioner claims to be producer of galvanized steel sheets, corrugated
sheets and coils, and exports its products to numerous countries across the
globe and also supplies galvanized and black pipe segments to the oil and
gas industry. According to petitioner, respondent is a state-owned non-life
insurance company in India.
3. According to petitioner, on 27.09.2021, an accidental fire broke out at
petitioner's plant at Jangalpur, which caused significant damage to its
aluminum foil rolling mill. Soon thereafter, the petitioner claims to have
informed the respondent about the accident, its ensuing loss and the
insurance claim arising under the "Material Damage and Business
Interruption" of the policy. The respondent appointed the Bhatawadekar
Insurance Surveyor and Loss Assessors Private Limited for assessing the
loss, and the surveyor submitted Final Survey Report on 31.08.2018,
wherein he had assessed the loss at INR 13,31,13,073 against a claim of of
INR 19,31 ,69,106 made by the petitioner.
4. It is asserted on behalf of petitioner, that on 31.12.2019, respondent
issued INR 3,84,80,892 towards settlement of the 8I/LOP claim arising
under the Policy, which also contained a pre-printed statement that petitioner
was voluntarily accepting the amount. The petitioner was insisted upon by
the respondent to sign the discharge voucher without any protest.
5. Vide letter dated 01.01.2020, petitioner sought a copy of the
Surveyor's report from respondent, which was replied vide letter dated
02.01.2020 by the respondent but according to petitioner, the said
communication did not incorporate the reasons for assessment and
thereafter, all the communications made on behalf of petitioner seeking
clarification thereon have remained unanswered. Therefore, a notice dated
13.03.2021 was issued by the petitioner to the respondent invoking
arbitration.
6. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that in pursuance to General
Condition No.12, as contained in the insurance policy No.
311700/11/2017/711 dated 13.01.2017 by the petitioner to the respondent,
the Arbitrator has to be appointed to adjudicate the disputes between the
parties.
7. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for petitioner submits
that vide aforesaid Notice dated 13.03.2021, petitioner has already
nominated its Arbitrator but respondent has failed to respond thereto within
stipulated time of 30 days, therefore, the preset petition be allowed.
8. During pendency of this petition, learned counsel for respondent had
sought time to obtain instructions. Today, it is submitted by learned counsel
that to resolve the disputes inter se parties, sole Arbitrator be appointed by
this Court.
9. In view of the aforesaid, Justice (Retd.) V.K. Shali (Mobile:
9717495000) is appointed sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes between
the parties.
10. The fees of the learned Arbitrator shall be according to Fourth
Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
11. The learned Arbitrator shall ensure compliance of Section 12 of
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 before commencing the arbitration.
12. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Arbitrator for information.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 17, 2021
r
