HARA MOHAN SEN Vs. DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal was filed by the appellants under Section 39(1) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 assailing the impugned judgment and order dated 20.5.95 passed by the learned District Judge, Karimganj in Misc. (Arbitration) Case No. 134/91 setting aside the award of the Arbitrators. The firm of the appellants M/s. Kara Mohan Sen, dealing in goods like stationery, plastic goods, glass bangles, imitation jewellaries and other goods etc. etc. was situated at Madan Mohan Road at Karimganj Town. The entire stocks of the goods of the firm was insured with the then Hindustan General Insurance Society Ltd., which was later on taken over by the National Insurance Company vide Notification dated 31.12.73 (for short "the Insurance Company) by two policies being No. 226793 dated 31/1/1969 for Rs.10,000.00 and 226649 dated 30/12/1968 for Rs.30,000.00. A devastating fire broke out on 15/11/1969 at Karimganj Bazar and the petitioners/appellants' firm was gutted causing damage of goods worth Rs.26,752/- as covered by policy No. 226649 and goods worth Rs.6441.00 which covered by other policy. The Insurance company after said fire deputed one Surveyor to assess the loss sustained by the firm of the appellants, and accordingly the Surveyor visited the shop and godown of the appellants' firm and prepared a list of damage articles and its Value. The appellants' submitted a claim petition to the Insurance Company for compensation on the basis of the assessment made by the Surveyor but the Insurance Company arbitrarily repudiated the claim of the appellants in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. Thereafter the appellants submitted one application dated 25.8.70 (Exbt. 9) to the Insurance Company for getting the payment of compensation as per terms and condition of the policies but the Insurance Company failed to pay any heed to the said letter. Thereafter the appellants served a legal notice upon the Insurance Company on 11.11.70 for settlement of the dispute through arbitration as per Cause 18 of the policy. Accordingly an arbitration proceeding was initiated with the appointment of two arbitrators but the claim of the appellants was dismissed by those arbitrators for nonprosecution of the proceeding. Ultimately this High Court interfered with in the matter and accordingly two other arbitrators were appointed to settle the dispute and the award dated 11.4.94 under challenge before the learned District Judge, Karimganj was filed by the arbitrators allowing the claim of the appellants. The learned District Judge after careful consideration of the award and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties set aside the award dated 11.4.94 holding inter alia that the claim of the appellants and the subsequent reference to the arbitration of the same were time barred in terms of clause 13 of the terms and condition of the policies.

(2.) I have heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the appellants. Also heard Mr. M. Bhuyan, learned counsel for the respondents. On perusal of the records including the impugned judgment of the learned District Judge and upon hearing tbs learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the moot question in controversy is whether the claims of the appellants are really time barred in terms of clause 13 of the terms and condition of the policy.

(3.) Therefore, in order to discuss and determine the crucial issue above noted, it would be convenient and necessary to look into the relevant clause 13 of the said poilicy which is quoted as under :