KHUSHAL CHAND Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sh. Khushal Chand Chauhan, filed an instant application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 19 -iO (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") on the allegation that under a policy which remained in force from 11 -5 -1988 to 10 -5 -1989, he had insured his three storeyed building plus bath, latrine as per the list attached therewith at village Barthata, Tehsil Jubbal, District Shimla, for Rs. 11,00,000 and the house -hold effects contained therein for Rs. 1,42,000 with the defendant Company and that in consequence of the unprecedented rains/flood a portion of the building was damaged causing a loss to the tune of Rs 1,89,125 on 2 8 -1988.

(2.) He thereupon intimated the defendant Company at Shimla through a telegram dated 10 -8 -1988 followed by a letter dated 12 -8 -1988. Due to the inaction of the defendant Company, he alleges to have got his damaged building inspected from various agencies and thus procured certificates from President, Gram Panchayat, Barthata, Lambardar, Panchgoan Barthata, President, Panchgoan Service Co -operative Society Ltd., Barthata, Patwari, Circle No. 4, Mihana, Tehsil Jubbal, vide A -2 to A -5 and ultimately got its estimate prepared through Junior Engineer, Development Block, Jubbal District Shimla on 11 -5 -1989. Despite the above said intimation given to the defendant Company allegedly they did not take any action nor intimated of the same which resulted into issuance of a notice dated 8 -3 -1990 explaining the entire facts and asking them to compensate the plaintiff for the loss suffered by him. No intimation as to the action taken by them was given to the plaintiff nor he stood compensated therefor.

(3.) The application has been opposed by the defendant Company and pleaded that as per their inquiry through the surveyor, no damage was sustained by the plaintiff nor the portion alleged to have been damaged as part of the building covered by the policy. In other words, firstly, the denial of damage sustained by the plaintiff and secondly, that damaged portion is a separate building within the one covered under the policy, have been raised. Resultantly, defendant Company contended that the application is not maintainable, inasmuch as, claim is false and has been treated as no claim and thus the claim having been repudiated in toto and there is nothing which could be referred to arbitration. For doing so, the defendant Company have based upon the reports of S/Sh. Kamlesh Gupta, their official Surveyor, R. L. Sharma and an independent Surveyor. The defendant Company admitted the receipt of letter on 17 -8 -1988 and subsequent notice referred to above but denied the receipt of the telegram. Clause -10 of the policy pertains to Arbitration The relevant words thereof ate as under : -