Allowed

Maharaja Sawai Man Singh II Museum Trust v. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Rajasthan HC4 May 2018ARBAP/107/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 filed by Museum Trust against Oriental Insurance Company for appointment of an arbitrator. Court held application maintainable as policy conversion was accepted and dispute remained on claim settlement, appointing a sole arbitrator.

What did the court decide?

Application allowed; Justice M.A.A. Khan (Retd.) appointed as sole arbitrator to resolve disputes. Fee and costs to be as per prescribed rules.

Maharaja Sawai Man Singh II Museum Trust Vs the Oriental… — Insurance | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Arbitration Application No. 107/2017

¶3

Maharaja Sawai Man Singh II Museum Trust, Jaipur, The City Palace, Jalebi Chowk, Jaipur through its Administrator And Authorised Signatory Col. HS Jatrana S/o Shri Chunnilal, Aged About 66 Years R/o 20 Lions Lane Sirsi Road, Khatipura Jaipur302012

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Direct Agent Branch, 310, 3^rd Floor, Corporate Park, Jaipur Rajasthan through its Senior Branch Manager.

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pancham Surana with Mr. Sarvesh Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pratap Singh Arya

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.N. BHANDARI

¶10

Judgment

¶11

04/05/2018

¶12

This application has been filed under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Act of 1996” ) for appointment of independent Arbitrator.

¶13

Learned counsel for applicant submits that an Insurance Policy was issued in the name of Rajmata Padmini Devi for the property belonging to Maharaja Sawai Man Singh II Museum Trust, Jaipur. On a fire in the Museum, a claim was made. While doing so, the claimant further made a request to the Insurance Company to rectify the error committed in the Policy issued by them. It was to make in the name of Maharaja Sawai Man Singh II Museum Trust, City Palace, Jaleb Chowk, Jaipur.

¶14

(2 of 5)

¶15

[ARBAP-107/2017]

¶16

It was also informed that on the demise of Maharaja Bhawani Singh, his adopted son Padmanabh Singh became his legal heir but he being a minor, Rajmata Padmini Devi, being natural guardian and even Chairperson of Maharaja Swai Man Singh II Museum Trust, submitted that claim may be accepted through her but cheques may be issued in the name of Maharaja Swai Man Singh II Museum Trust, City Palace, Jaleb Chowk, Jaipur.

¶17

The non-applicant-Insurance Company has endorsed the aforesaid. It is coming out from their letter dated 28^th August, 2015. While accepting the claim to the extent of Rs.29,71,445/-, a note appended to it and shows acceptance of request to change the name of policy holder. The aforesaid is further proved from the act of the non-applicant. The cheque to the extent of claim accepted by the non-applicant was sent in the name of Museum Trust and not in the name of individual namely, Rajmata Padmini Devi.

¶18

The amount of Rs.2971445/- was not acceptable to the applicant thus a request was made to appoint an Arbitrator to settle the dispute. The claim was for a sum of Rs.1,74,65,914/-. Even a survey pursuant to it was conducted with favourable report. The dispute aforesaid can be settled by the Arbitrator. A prayer is, accordingly, made to appoint an Arbitrator pursuant to the agreement between the parties.

¶19

A contest has been made to the prayer for appointment of Arbitrator. Shri Pratap Singh Arya, learned counsel appearing for non-applicant-Insurance Company, has raised preliminary objections about maintainability of the arbitration application. He submits that pursuant to the survey, claim was assessed and

¶20

(3 of 5) [ARBAP-107/2017]

¶21

conveyed with a request to complete the formalities. It was accepted in final settlement and, accordingly, an amount of Rs.29,71,454/- was credited in the bank account. Once settlement was accepted, an application under Section 11 of the Act of 1996 would not be maintainable. A reference of Annexure-A/1 submitted along with reply has been given to show that bank account details were disclosed by the non-applicant in token of acceptance of the amount. The application thus deserves to be dismissed on the aforesaid ground.

¶22

It is further submitted that an Insurance Policy was issued in the name of Rajmata Padmini Devi. The prayer to change the name of the policy holder was never accepted. The non-applicant is not in know of status of the Museum. They have not even been informed as to who are the trustees and what are the properties under it. Taking into consideration the aforesaid, the application made by the Museum Trust is not tenable as Insurance Policy does not exist in their name so as the agreement to invoke arbitration clause. A prayer is, accordingly, made to dismiss the application even on the aforesaid ground.

¶23

Learned counsel for non-applicant has further raised issue on merit of the claim, which is not permissible to contest on the application under Section 11 of the Act of 1996. A prayer is, however, made to dismiss the application.

¶24

I have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶25

(4 of 5)

¶26

[ARBAP-107/2017]

¶27

The application has been filed under Section 11 of the Act of 1996 to seek appointment of the Arbitrator pursuant to the agreement between the parties.

¶28

Learned counsel for non-applicant-Insurance Company has raised objections about maintainability of the application filed by Maharaja Swai Man Singh II Museum Trust, Jaipur. It is mainly on the ground that Insurance Policy was issued in the name of Rajmata Padmini Devi.

¶29

I find that Insurance Policy was issued in the name of Rajmata Padmini Devi. It was for the private property and property of Maharaja Swai Man Singh II Museum Trust. A request to change the name of the insured was made. It was accepted by the Insurance Company vide their letter dated 20^th October, 2015, that too, subsequent to the incident. It is while accepting the claim of Rs.29,71,445/-. Accordingly, I am not in agreement with the learned counsel for non-applicant on the issue of maintainability of the application.

¶30

Once the Insurance Company has agreed to endorse the request made by the insured to change the name in the Policy, the issue of maintainability cannot be raised if the application has been filed by Maharaja Swai Man Singh II Museum Trust. It is moreso when even the cheque of Rs.29,71,445/- was sent to the applicant and not to Rajmata Padmani Devi.

¶31

The another issue is regarding acceptance of claim without protest thus a dispute to make a claim so as request for appointment of Arbitrator cannot be accepted.

¶32

The perusal of documents on record shows that after a survey report, the non-applicant accepted the claim of Rs.29,71,445/-. There is nothing on record to show acceptance of

¶33

(5 of 5)

¶34

[ARBAP-107/2017]

¶35

amount without protest, rather, letter dated 15^th March, 2016 shows a protest against it followed by other communications for seeking information under Right to Information Act, 2005 and also a notice for seeking appointment of Arbitrator. The non-applicant had contested and claimed amount over and above the amount made admissible by the non-applicant. It becomes clear that amount was not accepted by the applicant unconditionally, rather, a protest was made immediately on receipt of the amount.

¶36

In view of the above, even second argument raised by learned counsel for non-applicant about final settlement of claim cannot be accepted.

¶37

In view of the above, arbitration application is allowed. Justice M.A.A. Khan (Retd.), A-19, Raghunath Puri, Kalwar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur, is hereby appointed as sole arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties. The payment of fee and costs of arbitration shall be as per the Fourth Schedule of the Arbitration and Conciliation (Amendment) Act, 2015 read with Manual of Procedure for Alternative Dispute Resolution, 2009 of this Court, as amended from time to time.

¶38

A copy of this order be sent to Justice M.A.A. Khan (Retd.), for needful.

¶39

(M.N. BHANDARI),J

¶40

FRBOHRA

Maharaja Sawai Man Singh II Museum Trust v. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maharaja Sawai Man Singh II Museum Trust v. the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd.

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

Rahul Taneja Vs Kailash Kumar Sain

Rajaram Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Shri Tejpal Singh Vs the Official Liquidator Ms Rathi Alloys

Tikam Khandelwal Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Dr Heera Lal Bairwa Vs State of Raj and Anr.

M/S Brandavan Food Products Vs Union of India Nwr and Anr.