Fire Insurance Dispute: Supreme Court Judgment on Limitation Issue

In a significant legal development, the Supreme Court of India has addressed a limitation issue in a fire insurance dispute case. The dispute between the parties revolves around the quantum of compensation following a policy issued on 01.12.1999. The arbitration application filed by the insurance company was dismissed on grounds of limitation, leading to an appeal under Section 37 of the Act, 1996. Stay tuned to understand the Supreme Court’s judgment and its impact on future legal proceedings.

Facts

• Appellant insurance company issued a fire insurance policy for the plant and machinery of the respondent company.
• An award was passed by an Arbitral Tribunal, awarding a sum of Rs.44,90,000/- with interest at 18% per annum and costs.
• Two arbitrators agreed on the sum awarded, while the third dissented, claiming that the sum of Rs.33,80,925/- offered by the insurance company was fair.
• Appellant filed an application under Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act seeking clarification on the award and the venue of arbitration.
• Application under Section 33 was dismissed, leading to the insurance company’s appeal before the High Court.
• Policy was issued on 01.12.1999 and a claim arose on 23.04.2000 due to a fire accident at the respondent’s premises.
• Insurance company offered a sum of Rs.7,98,019/- to the respondent, which was refused.
• A meeting was held on 20.09.2001 where an offer of Rs.25,00,000/- was made and paid to the respondent through Vijaya Bank.
• District Judge at Jaipur found the petition not maintainable before that Court but exercised power under Order 7 Rule 10 and 10 A of the Civil Procedure Code.
• District Judge returned the petition to the appellant insurance company and directed the parties to be present before the District Judge in Jodhpur for further proceedings.
• Appellant insurance company filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Act, 1996 before the High Court in Jodhpur.
• High Court dismissed the appeal after considering the order passed by the District Judge in Jodhpur.

Also Read: Solapur Municipal Corporation vs. Majarewadi Gram Panchayat Employees

Arguments

• The appellant filed a petition under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 which was dismissed on the ground of limitation.
• The appellant also filed an appeal under Section 37 of the Act, 1996 raising contentions on the award and order, but the merits of the claim were not considered due to the limitation issue.
• The dispute between the parties revolved around the quantum of compensation related to a fire accident following a policy issued on 01.12.1999.
• The application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act was argued, emphasizing the liberal construction of ‘sufficient cause’ under Section 5 for advancing substantial justice.
• The rules of limitation were not meant to destroy the rights of parties and should not foreclose the remedy available under Section 34 to challenge the arbitral award.
• Citing case law, it was highlighted that the delay should be condoned unless malafide in not approaching the court within time is proven by the opposite party.
• The correct application of Section 14 of the Limitation Act to proceedings under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 was reiterated with reference to relevant case law.

Also Read: Vaishali Wadhwani and Mamta Mishra vs. MPPSC: Upholding Justice and Integrity in Recruitment Processes

Analysis

• The petition under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 was filed within the time frame specified under Section 34 (3) of the Act, 1996.
• The original application was returned by the District Judge, Jaipur, and was to be presented before the District Judge, Jodhpur, on a specified date.
• The petition was re-presented before the District Court at Jodhpur with a delay of 8 days from the originally fixed date for presentation.
• The appellant did not seek an extension of time for re-presentation before the District Judge at Jaipur where the original petition was returned.
• The cause of action had occurred at Jodhpur, but the proceedings were initiated in Jaipur.
• The Court at Jaipur had indicated the Court where the re-presented petition had to be filed and the date for appearance.
• No application was filed under Section 148 of CPC seeking an extension of time for the delay in re-presentation.
• The delay in re-presentation of the petition was for 8 days beyond the date fixed by the Court at Jaipur.
• The appellant filed an application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act after the respondent filed an application under Section 3 of the Limitation Act.
• The application under Section 14 of the Limitation Act was for condonation of the delay in re-presentation of the petition.
• The analysis of the situation indicates that the dismissal of the petition under Section 34 of the Act, 1996 on the ground of limitation was justified and condonation of delay should have been sought.
• The matter needs to be considered further on its merits before the District Judge, Jodhpur, limited to the permissible considerations under Section 34 of the Act, 1996.
• Re-presentation of a petition in the court specified in the order for return is not considered a fresh filing
• Citing the case of Joginder Tuli vs S.L. Bhatia, where evidence was already adduced by the parties
• Referring to the decision in Simplex Infrastructure Ltd. vs. Union of India, stating Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to petitions challenging arbitral awards under Section 34 of the Act
• Section 14 of the Limitation Act applies to applications under Section 34 seeking exclusion of certain periods, if the application is initially filed within the limitation period provided under Section 34(3) of the Act
• Established position that Section 5 of the Limitation Act cannot be used to condone the statutory period under Section 34(3) of the Act
• The delay of 8 days in re-presentation at the Court in Jaipur was the only issue at hand, not the entire period spent before the Court at Jaipur.
• The delay should not be considered as malafide to deny consideration of proceedings under Section 34 of Act, 1996 initiated within the limitation period.
• Orders passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge in Jodhpur and the High Court were deemed unsustainable as the delay was not found to be malafide.
• The Court at Jaipur did not conclude that the proceedings were initiated malafide, indicating a need for detailed consideration before exercising power under Civil Procedure Code.
• The overall facts and circumstances of the case were considered before reaching any conclusions.

Also Read: Jagdishchandra v. Joint Charity Commissioner & Ors.

Decision

• All pending applications disposed of.
• Contentions left open for further consideration.
• Arbitration Application No.18-A of 2008 restored to the file of the Additional District Judge S.No.3, Jodhpur.
• Parties to appear before the said Court on 15.10.2019 as the first date for appearance without a notice/summons from that Court.
• Proceedings to be considered on merits in an expeditious manner.
• Previous proceedings set aside.
• Appeal allowed with no order as to costs.

Case Title: ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. Vs. M/S TEJPARAS ASSOCIATES

Case Number: C.A. No.-006524-006524 / 2009

Click here to read/download original judgement