Page 44 - Insurance Times May 2019

LEGAL

Vehicle Insurance

Policyholder fined Rs.5000 for seeking Beside, once the claim was accepted in full and final settle-
ment without lodging any protest, the insured could not be
wrong claim permitted to raise any dispute subsequently.
Ganesh Anand Bhat, the proprietor of Shree Ganesh Agen-
cies, owned two adjacent shops at Mulund. He had taken By its order of March 13, 2019, the Commission considered
a shopkeeper's insurance policy from New India Assurance the claim in respect of the second shop to be bogus and
which covered only one shop. A fire occurred in which both contrary to the coverage mentioned in the policy. Since the
the shops were gutted, and the goods stored were de- appeal was filed to pursue a fraudulent claim for the other
stroyed. shop which was not insured, the State Commission dis-
missed the appeal with costs of Rs. 5,000 payable by Bhat
Bhat lodged an insurance claim. A surveyor was appointed
to the insurance company.
who assessed the loss for both the shops but observed that
the claim would be payable only for one shop which had
been insured. The claim was settled by paying Rs 21,16,666, Late plea of coercion not acceptable
which was accepted by Bhat without protest. In another judgment involving the appointment of an ar-
bitrator, the Supreme Court emphasised that a mere plea
Bhat later filed a complaint before the Additional Forum of fraud, coercion or undue influence by one party is not
for Mumbai Suburban District, contending that he should enough to get an arbitrator appointed unless the allega-
also be reimbursed the loss pertaining to the other shop. tions are backed by satisfactory evidence on record.
The Forum dismissed the complaint on the ground that the
discharge voucher showed that the claim had been ac- In this case, United India Insurance vs Antique Art Exports
cepted in full and final settlement. Ltd, the company had purchased a policy covering fire and
special perils. There was an accident in the factory and two
Bhat challenged this order before the Maharashtra State claims were made. The insurer paid both and the exporter
Commission. He attempted to make out a new case that sent a reply accepting the computation made by the insurer
both the shops were covered under the policy, but there and attaching a final discharge voucher.
was a mistake in mentioning only one shop. During the
pendency of the proceedings, Bhat expired. His widow However, after 11 weaks, the exporter alleged that the
Rekha and daughters Varsha and Anushka continued with vouchers were given under duress. It moved the Delhi High
the litigation as the legal heirs. Court, requesting it to appoint an arbitrator. The high court
appointed one on the ground that since there were alle-
Sapna Bhuptany, the Advocate defending New India Assur- gations of duress, the issue should be settled in arbitration.
ance, argued that since only one shop was covered under The insurer appealed to the Supreme Court. It set aside the
the policy, the refusal to pay for the loss in respect of the high court order observing that it committed a manifest
other shop was justified. She argued that refusal to settle error by passing the order mechanically and pointing out
a claim for the shop which was not insured could not be the delay in raising the complaint after sending the dis-
termed a deficiency in service or unfair trade practice. charge voucher.

44 The Insurance Times, May 2019