- (1.) HEARD Sri Saurabh Srivastava, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri B.N.Agrawal, the learned counsel for the opposite party.
(2.) THE claimant opposite party issued a letter dated 18th October, 2001 to the Insurance Company/appellant requesting them to insure their plant, machinery building etc. for Rs. 61,00,000/ - on "Reinstatement Value Basis" which is a different kind of a policy from that of a standard fire policy. On the basis of this letter, it transpires that the Insurance company insisted on making an inspection of the building, plant and machinery which they did. It transpires that the opposite party further issued a letter dated 5th November, 2001 intimating and asserting that the oxygen manufacturing unit is a higher pressure continuous process plant and each machinery is syncronised with each other and again requested to quote their rates of insurance so that insurance is made at the earliest. It transpires that the Development Officer submitted the rates which was accepted by the opposite party and the Insurance premium was paid. The opposite party subsequently requested that a cover note and insurance policy be provided to them which the insurance company failed to provide. In this regard several letters and correspondence has been made between the parties. Eventually, without receiving a cover note and the insurance policy, a fire accident took place in the establishment of the opposite party resulting in damage to the machinery. An inspection was made by the Insurance company and a claim was lodged by the opposite party. At this stage, the cover note and the insurance policy was provided to the claimant opposite party. Upon perusal of the Insurance policy the opposite party objected it contending that the insurance policy was required to be made on "Reinstatement Value Basis" and not on "Standard Fire Policy Basis". The Insurance company settled the claim on the basis of the standard fire policy issued by them which the opposite party did not accept and the matter was ultimately referred to arbitration.
(3.) BEFORE the Arbitrator the following issues were framed : - 1.Whether the insurance policy in question was taken on reinstatement value basis or it was a standard fire policy? In either cases, its effect. 2.Whether the copies of the cover notes are given by the Insurance Company immediately, or after much delay persuasion as alleged by the Claimant Company ? If so, its effect. 3.Whether the amount of Rs. 8,01,000/ - paid by the Insurance Company was accepted by the Claimant Company in full and final settlement of the claim or it was accepted as part payment under protest ? In either cases, its effect. On Issue No.1 the arbitrator found that the claimant opposite party had made a specific request for giving them an insurance policy on reinstatement value basis and requested the insurance company to give them a competitive rate which they could accept and insurance could be taken out.;