LAWS(MAD)-2018-2-341

M/S MOTILAL OSWAL SECURITIES LTD., REP., BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER MR. RAMAKRISHNAN, 2ND FLOOR, PALM SPRING CENTRE, NEXT TO D Vs. MR. P.M. ABRAHAM, PERIALATHU HOUSE, MADATHUMBHAGOM NORTH P.O. PURAUMATTOM, THIRUVALLA

Decided On February 27, 2018
M/S Motilal Oswal Securities Ltd., Rep., By Its Branch Manager Mr. Ramakrishnan, 2Nd Floor, Palm Spring Centre, Next To D Appellant
V/S
Mr. P.M. Abraham, Perialathu House, Madathumbhagom North P.O. Puraumattom, Thiruvalla Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is the Insurer and the first respondent is the Assured. The contract was for a Vessel. The first respondent made a claim, which was repudiated by the petitioner. Thereafter, the first respondent sent a communication stating that it would take appropriate action as per law. The petitioner appointed an expert whose Report was found against the first respondent. Then, the petitioner made a request to M/s Creative marine Insurance Consultants Private Limited, Mumbai, to give its opinion. A communication was sent by the aforesaid concern stating that instead of giving an opinion, it would act as an Adjudicator. It is needless to state that it was the petitioner, who sought for technical opinion as against the Surveyor's Report submitted earlier. The proposal given by the concern viz., M/s Creative marine Insurance Consultants Private Limited, Mumbai, was accepted by both the authorities along with terms and conditions mentioned therein to act as an Adjudicator. The specific terms speaks about the scope of adjudication, methodology, agreement between the parties for adjudication, requirements and stipulations. The following clauses would be relevant.

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that even a perusal of the record would show that what is sought for is only an opinion. The opinion has been sought for from an expert behind the back of the petitioner. There was no examination of expert, who gave the opinion. Therefore, thee is no award in the eye of law. In support of his contention, he made reliance on the following decisions.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would submit that the second respondent has made it very clear that he did not agree with the Report relied upon by the petitioner. It was the petitioner, who sought for the opinion earlier. The second respondent was appointed along with the terms and conditions imposed by his consultancy by an agreement between the parties. As the Award was made on merit and being inquisitorial no interference is required.