BANSAL BROTHERS Vs. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant is a proprietorship concern. The respondent is an insurance company whose services were availed of by the applicant for the purpose of cash insurance. In 2004, on the request of the applicant, the respondent issued two policies, one for Rs. 5 Crores and the other for Rs. 2.5 Crores. On 17th January, 2005, when the employees of the applicant were carrying the cash amounting to Rs.10.22 Lakhs to the bank, the same was looted in broad day light robbery. One of the employees of the applicant was shot dead in the incident. Immediately police was called and an FIR in this regard was also lodged on the same day by the applicant. An intimation in this regard was also given to the respondent 's local office on the same day which was duly acknowledged.

(2.) THE applicant on 7th March, 2005, wrote a letter to the respondent requesting them to settle the claim as early as possible. A copy of the FIR was also sent along with the claim. The applicant again wrote the letter dated 31st May, 2005 along with a declaration under both the insurance policies separately. Thereafter, the applicant wrote several letters, to which the respondent did not reply. After about more than five months of the incident, the respondent appointed one Sh. L.D. Arora as the Surveyor/Investigator to assess the loss incurred by the applicant. According to the applicant, he fully cooperated with the Surveyor and submitted all the relevant documents to him. However, for the next six months from the date of appointment of the surveyor, the applicant did not hear anything from the respondent office with regard to the settlement of its claims or about the report of the surveyor. The applicant also wrote letters dated 1.12.2005, 7.12.2005 and 24.12.2005 to the respondent, but the respondent failed to respond to the said letters. In the meantime, in connection with the robbery, the police arrested the accused and sealed/seized the bank account of the mother of one of the accused in which Rs. 9 Lakhs were discovered to be lying. The surveyor appears to have submitted his report dated 13.12.2005, whereby he admitted the claim of the applicant upto Rs. 3 Lakhs under Policy No. 7600278 and had also given an observation that the claim may be decided only after identification of the accused and recovery of the lost amount. The applicant claimed that thereafter the applicant approached the officers of the respondent several times, but the respondent kept on asking the applicant to get the said amount released from the court. Finally, vide letter dated 27.11.2006, the respondent informed the applicant that the respondent has approved a claim of Rs. 3 Lakhs only whereas the total claim of the applicant was of Rs. 9 lakhs and the loss incurred by it was of Rs. 10.22 Lakhs. It appears that thereafter, the amount of Rs. 3 Lakhs was released in favour of the applicant upon the applicant 's signing certain documents as required by the respondent - Insurance Company. In letter dated 9.12.2006, a protest was made that the applicant is entitled to release of the balance amount.

(3.) IN opposing the arbitration application, the respondent Insurance Company contends that the applicant has accepted the amount as full and final settlement of all its claims towards the respondent and, therefore, it is not now open to the applicant to approach this Court for appointment of an arbitrator for the settlement of dues which already stood settled on account of payment of Rs. 3 Lakhs. It is further contended that in view of the settlement, the contract stood discharged and there is no occasion to refer the claim to the arbitration. It is further contended that the dispute is also not referable to the arbitration inasmuch as it is not a dispute regarding quantum of amount payable but rather it is a dispute of determining the validity of the settlement and the receipt of money in consideration thereof as per the final settlement. It is submitted that in view of the dispute not being about of quantum, as the quantum stands determined, is not referable to the arbitration.