RUBY GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. PEAREY LAL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave against the Judgment of the Punjab High Court upholding the decision of a subordinate Judge of Delhi relating to a petition filed by the appellant-company under S. 33, Arbitration Act, against the respondents.

(2.) The material facts are these. On 22-4-1947; the appellant company insured a car belonging to respondent 1 and issued a policy which fully sets out the terms and conditions of the agreement relating to the insurance. Respondent 1 left his car in a garage at Lahore and came away to India on 31-7-1947. Subsequently, he learned about the loss of his car, and sent a legal notice dated 18-3-1948 through his advocate, Mr. A. R. Kapur to the Head Office of the company at Calcutta, claiming a sum of Rs. 7,000 for the loss of the car. On 10-4-1948, Mr. Kapur received a letter from the Branch Manager of the Company's office at Amritsar asking for information regarding certain matters stated in the letter. This information appears to have been supplied on 30-4-1948. On 26-5-1948, the company's Branch Manager at Amritsar wrote to respondent 1 repudiating the liability of the company for the loss of the car on the ground that the loss was "due to communal riots which were going on in the whole of Punjab" and was not covered by the agreement of insurance. A similar letter was written again by the Branch Manager on 3-7-1948 to respondent 1 and another letter was written by one Mr. Rattan Lall Chawla representing himself to be counsel for the company to Mr. A. R. Kapur, on 1-8-1948. On 21-11-1949, respondent 1 wrote a letter to the Branch Secretary of the Company's office at Calcutta, stating that his claim was valid and nominating Mr. T. C. Chopra, Assistant Manager, Lakshmi Insurance Company Ltd., Delhi, as arbitrator on his behalf and requesting the company to appoint another person as arbitrator on its behalf. Thereafter, the company presented an application on 29-12-1949, in the Court of the Senior Sub judge, Delhi, under S. 33, Arbitration Act, against respondent 1 and Mr. T. C. Chopra, the arbitrator, who is respondent 2 in this appeal, praying for -

(3.) The points that were urged on behalf of the appellant in this appeal are these:(1) that the arbitration clause had ceased to be operative and the question as to the existence and validity of the arbitration agreement was triable by the Court under S. 33 Arbitration Act and not by the arbitrator; and (2) that the award was invalid and not binding on the appellant, because it was pronounced in spite of the order of the court dated 11- 2 - 1950, directing the arbitrator not to pronounce his award.