Partly allowed

Francis Kottackal Exim Pvt. Ltd. v. the United India Insurance Company Limited

Kerala HC10 Aug 2022AR/76/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an arbitration request regarding an insurance claim, the Kerala High Court appointed a retired District Judge as the sole arbitrator after noting the respondent raised preliminary objections regarding limitation and liability. The court directed the parties to file a disclosure statement.

What did the court decide?

Appointment of Retd. District Judge Sri. K. George Oommen as the sole arbitrator; directions to file disclosure statement and pay fees as per Schedule IV.

Francis Kottackal Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs the United India Insurance… — Insurance | Kerala HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN

¶4

WEDNESDAY, THE 10^TH DAY OF AUGUST 2022 / 19TH SRAVANA, 1944 AR NO. 76 OF 2022

¶5

PETITIONER:

¶6

FRANCIS KOTTACKAL EXIM PVT LTD HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT DOOR NO. 6-321,KOTTACKAL HOUSE,MATOOR, KALADY, ERNAKULAM,KERALA-683574, THROUGH ITS DULY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SHRI K.V.FRANCIS BY ADV SHAJU FRANCIS

¶7

RESPONDENTS:

¶8

1 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT K.G. TOWERS, FLOOR NO. 1,THRISSUR ROAD, ANGAMALY,ERNAKULAM, KERALA683572,THROUGH ITS BRANCH MANAGER

¶9

2 THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED REGIONAL OFFICE AT SHARANYA, FLOOR NO. - 1, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KERALA - 682011 THROUGH ITS REGIONAL MANAGER

¶10

BY ADV P.K.MANOJKUMAR

¶11

THIS ARBITRATION REQUEST HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10.08.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶12

Sathish Ninan, J.

¶13

==============================

¶14

Arbitration Request No.76 of 2022 ========================== Dated this the 10^th day of August, 2022

¶15

ORDER

¶16

The non-settlement of insurance claim by the

¶17

respondent made under the insurance policies purchased

¶18

by the petitioner, has lead to the present Arbitration Request.

¶19

The petitioner purchased two insurance policies

¶20

from the respondent to insure its stocks of rice at its factory against “Loss” and “Damage” arising out of inter alia “... Flood and Inundation...” . Claims were raised by the petitioner alleging damage of stocks on account of flooding. According to the petitioner, the respondent company satisfied only a part of the claim and the balance remain unsatisfied. The terms of the agreement between the parties provides for dissolution of disputes by arbitration. The respondent has not co-operated for

¶21

the appointment of an Arbitrator. It is on the said

¶22

Arbitration Request No.76 of 2022 -: 2 :-

¶23

allegations that the petitioner has approached this

¶24

Court seeking appointment of an Arbitrator.

¶25

The respondent has filed a counter affidavit.

¶26

Heard the learned counsel on either sides.

¶27

The arbitration clause in the agreement reads

¶28

thus:

¶29

“If any dispute or difference shall arise as to the quantum to be paid under this policy (liability being otherwise admitted) such difference stand independently of all other questions be referred to the decision of a sole arbitrator to be appointed in writing by the parties to or if they cannot agree upon a single arbitrator within 30 days of any party invoking arbitration, the same shall be referred to a panel of three arbitrators, comprising of two arbitrators, one to be appointed by each of the parties to the dispute/difference and the third arbitrator to be appointed by such two arbitrators and arbitration shall be conducted under and in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. It is clearly agreed and understood that no difference or dispute shall be referable to arbitration as herein before provided, if the

¶30

Arbitration Request No.76 of 2022 -: 3 :-

¶31

company has disputed or not accepted liability under or in respect of this policy. It is hereby expressly stipulated and declared that it shall be a condition precedent to any rights of action or suit upon this policy that the award by such arbitrator/ arbitrators of the amount of the loss or damage shall be first obtained.

¶32

The objections of the respondent are mainly

¶33

three fold; firstly, that the damages as assessed by the Surveyor has been paid and the claim was satisfied by the company on 06.02.2019; secondly, the respondent disputes the very liability for the claim now sought to be urged by the petitioner and not the quantum. The arbitration clause relied on by the petitioner provides for arbitration only on disputes on the quantum payable; and thirdly, in terms of clause 6(b) of the contract, the claim is to be made within twelve months. The present claim having been raised beyond twelve months from the date of happening of the alleged event, is

¶34

Arbitration Request No.76 of 2022 -: 4 :-

¶35

barred by limitation.

¶36

All the above are matters to be urged by the

¶37

respondent before the Arbitrator.

¶38

Thus, leaving open the rival contentions of the

¶39

parties, the Arbitration Request is ordered as hereunder:

¶40

(a) Rtd. District Judge Sri.K. George Oommen, Kalamannil, 11/281-(1) Crash Road, (Near) Noel Touchstone Apts, Vazhakkala, Thrikkakara P.O, Kochi – 682 031, Mobile No. - 9995195146, is provisionally nominated as the Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the parties.

¶41

(b) A copy of this order shall be communicated to the learned Arbitrator by the Advocate of the applicant within a period of one week from today. A copy of the order shall also be forwarded to the learned Sole Arbitrator by the Registry.

¶42

Arbitration Request No.76 of 2022 -: 5 :-

¶43

¶44

statement of disclosure under Section 11(8) r/w Section

¶45

12(1) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶46

(d) The registry shall place the disclosure

¶47

statement before this Court, for confirmation of the appointment of the Arbitrator.

¶48

(e) The Arbitrator's fees shall be payable as per

¶49

Schedule IV to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

¶50

Sd/-

¶51

Sathish Ninan, Judge

¶52

vdv

¶53

APPENDIX OF AR 76/2022

¶54

PETITIONE	R ANNEX	URES
Annexure	A1	A COPY OF THE BOARD RESOLUTION DATED 01/02/2022.
Annexure	A2	THE ORIGINAL INSURANCE POLICY, BEING POLICY NO. 1009011118P105051585 FOR A SUM OF RS. 1,20,00,000/- (RUPEES ONE CRORE AND TWENTY LACS ONLY) FOR THE PERIOD 13/07/2018 THROUGH 12/07/2019
Annexure	A3	ORIGINAL ENDORSEMENT FOR ENHANCEMENT TO A SUM OF RS. 02,30,00,000/- (RUPEES TWO CRORES AND THIRTY LACS ONLY)
Annexure	A4	A TRUE COPY OF POLICY NO. 1009011117P118518036 FOR THE PERIOD 22/03/2018 THROUGH 21/03/2019, FOR THE SUM OF RS. 01,00,00,000/- (RUPEES ONE CRORE ONLY)
Annexure	A5	A TRUE COPY OF SURVEY REPORT DATED 14/01/2019
Annexure	A6	TRUE ATTESTED COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE PETITIONER COMPANY, BEING MAINTAINED AT THE FEDERAL BANK, KALADY, KERALA
Annexure	A7	A TRUE COPY OF THE LEGAL NOTICE, DATED 28/12/2021, TO THE RESPONDENTS
Annexure	A8	A TRUE COPY OF THE TRACKING REPORT OF CONSIGNMENT NO.ED988480025IN
Annexure	A9	A TRUE COPY OF THE TRACKING REPORT OF CONSIGNMENT NO.ED988480034IN

Francis Kottackal Exim Pvt. Ltd. v. the United India Insurance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Francis Kottackal Exim Pvt. Ltd. v. the United India Insurance Company Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S.Coastal Engineering, Vs the Union of India

Badarudeen Vs Thankamma Mathunni

Suresh Vs Sanjok Sharma

Francis Kottackal Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs the United India Insurance Company Limited

Francis Kottackal Exim Pvt. Ltd. Vs the United India Insurance Company Limited

T.K. Kishore Vs Lijo