The High Court dismissed the insurance company's appeal against an order confirming an arbitration award of Rs. 19,00,479/- to the insured for burglary losses, finding the policy covered the specific goods lost which were not excluded.
No costs. The appeal is dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :: 15-11-2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESH
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
O.S.A.No.63 OF 2015
The New India Assurance Co.Ltd., Ragina Mansion, I Floor, 45, Moore Street, Chennai-600 001. ....
.... Appellant/ Petitioner
-vs-
1.Gemini Enterprises Old No.36(New No.59) Police commisioner office road, Egmore , Chennai. 8. 2.N.C.Vijayaraghavan
... Respondents/ RespondentS
Appeal against the order, dated 25.09.2008, passed in O.P.No.24 of 2004 on the file of this Court as against the award, dated 12.08.2002.
Prayer in O.P.No.24/2004:
Petition filed Under Section 34 of the Arbitrication and conciliation Act,1996 to set aside the award passed by the second Respondent dated 12.08.2002.
For appellant : Mr.P.S.Ganesan For respondent 1 : Mr.V.Ramesh
for M/s.Sampath Kumar & Associates
JUDGMENT (Judgment of the Court was delivered by Krishnan Ramasamy, J.
This appeal is filed against the order, dated 25.09.2008, passed in O.P.No.24 of 2004, by a learned single Judge of this Court.
Rs.20,00,000/- for a period of one year from 19.08.1996 to 18.08.1997. During the existence of the said policy, there was an incident of burglary at the premises of first respondent. Therefore, they lodged a claim before the appellant-insurer. However, the same was rejected, on the ground of nonadmissibility of claim. The matter was referred to the arbitrator, who awarded a compensation of Rs.19,00,479/-and the same was confirmed by the learned single Judge of this Court vide the impugned order, dated 25.09.2008.
"It is clearly agreed and understood that no difference or dispute shall be referable to arbitration as hereinbefore, provided, if the Company has disputed or not accepted liability under or in respect of this policy"
Therefore, it is the case of the appellant that the said aspect has not been considered by both the arbitrator and the learned single Judge.
"The Company shall not be liable in respect of: I. Gold or Silver articles, watches or jewellery or precious stones or models or coins or curios sculptures, manuscripts, rare books, plans, medals, moulds, designs, deeds, bonds, bills of exchange, bank, treasury or promissory notes, cheques, money, securities, stamps, collection of stamps, business books or papers, unless specifically insured.
II. Loss or damage where any inmate or member of the insured's household or of his business staff or any other person lawfully in the premises in the business is concerned in the actual theft or damage to any of the articles or premises or where such loss or damage has been expedited or in any way assisted or brought about by any such person
or persons.
III. Loss or damage which is recoverable under Five or Plate Glass Insurance Policy or any other policy.
IV a) Loss or damage directly or indirectly, proximately or remotely occasioned by or which arises out of or in connection with Riot and Strike, Civil Commotion, Terrorist activities, earth quake, flood, storm, volcanic eruption Typhoon, Hurricane, Tornado, cyclone or other convulsions on nature or atmospheric disturbances.
b) Loss or damage whether directly or indirectly arising from war, war like operations and of foreign enemy hostilities (whether war be declared or not) civil war, revolution, insurrection, civil commotion millitary or usurped power, seizure, capture, confiscation, arrests, restrained and detainment by Order of any government or any other authority.
In any action, suit or other proceedings where the Company alleges that by reason of the above provisions any loss or damage is not covered by this insurance, the burden of providing that such loss or damage is covered shall be upon the insured.
V a) Any loss or damage to any property whatsoever or any loss expense whatsoever resulting or arising therefrom or any Consequential loss or any legal liability of whatsoever nature-directly or indirectly caused by or contributed to or arising from ionising radiation or contamination by radioactivity from any source whatsoever.
b. Any accident, loss, destruction, damage or legal liability directly or indirectly caused by or contributed to by or arising from Nuclear weapon material.
VI. Consequential loss or legal liability of any kind. VII. Loss of money and or other property abstracted from the safe following the use of the key to the said safe or any duplicate thereof belonging to the insured unless such key has been obtained by assault or violence or any threats there at. This Policy shall cease to attach:
VIII.a) If the premises shall have been left uninhabited by day and night for seven or more consecutive days and nights while the premises are left uninhabited.
b) If the insured shall cause or suffer any material alteration to be made in the premises or anything to be done whereby the risk is increased.
c) To any property the interest of the insured in which shall pass from the insured otherwise than by will or Operation of Law.
Unless in every case the consent of the Company to the continuance of the Insurance thereon is obtained and signified on the policy".
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(Co)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
dixit copy to The Sub Asst.Registrar, O.S Section, High court,Madras
+1cc to M/s.Sampath Kumar & Associates , Advocate SR.No. 78667 +1cc to Mr.P.S.Ganesan , Advocate SR.No. 77935
O.S.A.No.63 OF 2015
ASK(09/01/2019)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant's appeal against the confirmation of an arbitration award in an insurance claim can be allowed.
Whether the non-arbitrability of the dispute regarding policy exclusions was properly considered by the lower court.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Gemini Enterprises
N.C. Vijayaraghavan
M.M. Sundresh
Krishnan Ramasamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
