Bombay High Court
New India Insurance Company vs Seapol Port Private Limited on 23 April, 2026
2026:BHC-OS:10430
901-CARBPL-6069-2023*.docx
rrpillai IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION PETITION (L) NO. 6069 OF 2023
The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Regional Office (Claims Hub)
Dewa Towers, 3rd Floor, 770-A,
Anna Salai, Near Spencer Plaza ..... Petitioner
Chennai-600 002
Vs.
M/s. Seapol Port Pvt. Ltd.
A Private Limited Company
Having their office at Dheen Estate
2nd Floor, Moore Street,
Chennai-600 001 ..... Respondents
Mr. Sanjit Shenoy (through VC) a/w. Mr. Vipul Shukla i/b. S. Shenoy
and Associates for the Petitioner.
Mr. Aseem Naphade a/w. Mr. Rahul Mehta, Mr. Nikhil Mehta and Ms.
Deepanjali Mishra i/b. KMC Legal Venture for the Respondent.
CORAM : GAURI GODSE J
RESERVED ON : 12th DECEMBER 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 23rd APRIL 2026
JUDGMENT :
BASIC FACTS:
1. This petition is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act 1996 (“the Arbitration Act“) by the original respondent
Digitally
signed by
RAJESHWARI
RAJESHWARI RAMESH
RAMESH PILLAI
PILLAI Date: 1/24
2026.04.23
18:27:59
+0530::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2026 23:29:33 :::
901-CARBPL-6069-2023*.docx(“the Insurance Company”) for setting aside the majority Award dated
27th September 2022 by the presiding arbitrator and the co-arbitrator
of the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of three members. By the impugned
Award, the petitioner is directed to pay to the respondent (“claimant”)
a sum of Rs. 3,73,88,393/- together with future interest thereon
@18% per annum from 11th March 2021, i.e. the date of the claim, till
realisation. The tribunal also directed the Insurance Company to pay
the claimant’s share towards the arbitration fees.
2. The claim is based on an insurance policy, namely
“Contractor’s Plant and Machinery Insurance Policy” (“the said
policy”). The sum insured under the said policy was Rs.
25,80,00,000/-. The said policy insured a machine known as
“Leibherr- Harbour Crane” bearing Serial No. 140836 (“the said
machine”) for a period from 10 th August 2019 to 9 th August 2020. On
26th August 2019, a fire incident occurred at the claimant’s premises
at the Vishakhapatnam Port Trust, where the said machine was
stationed. Hence, the claim for the loss suffered due to the damage to
the machine.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. The impugned Award grants a speculative claim with no basis
in evidence. The assessment in the impugned Award is in conflict
2/24
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2026 23:29:33 :::
901-CARBPL-6069-2023*.docxwith the public policy of India and therefore invites intervention under
Section 34(2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration Act. The impugned Award is
inconsistent with IRDAI and public accountability norms applicable to
PSUs. The impugned Award erroneously accepts a 15%
improvement in the upgraded crane model as per the second
addendum to the surveyor’s report, without any OEM corroboration.
The 49% depreciation accepted is based on operating hours, which is
technically unjustified. In accordance with industry practice, OEM
benchmarks, and crane usage history, the minority Award correctly
applied 60% depreciation. The impugned Award accepted the
surveyor’s report without requiring an examination of the surveyor,
unfairly shifting the burden onto the Insurance Company. The
impugned Award accepts the claim of Rs. 11.30 Crores despite the
absence of OEM invoices, an independent valuation, or proof of
actual loss.
4. The impugned Award erroneously dismisses Mr Navin Jain’s
report due to the absence of a surveyor’s license. Mr. Jain was
appointed as a technical expert under Section 64UM of the Insurance
Act and not as a surveyor; hence, his analysis remains credible. The
claimant’s figures are on assumptions without OEM confirmation or
proof of replacement cost, and in the absence of OEM-backed
3/24
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2026 23:29:33 :::
901-CARBPL-6069-2023*.docx
valuation or market quotes. Hence, the claimant failed to prove actual
loss.
5. The reasons recorded in the impugned Award are erroneous in
law and fact, ignoring settled regulatory understanding. The
impugned Award incorrectly infers malice from delay, without
appreciating the mandatory public-sector approvals and the
unprecedented COVID situation prevailing at the material time.
6. The estimates accepted by the impugned Award are patently
illegal and in conflict with the Evidence Act and insurance law. The
grant of interest @ 18% per annum from 29 th November 2019 to 9 th
July 2020 and further from the date of statement of claim till
realisation is excessive and contrary to section 3(1) of the Interest
Act, which mandates that interest should not exceed the current
lending rate unless supported by a usage of trade or contract, which
is absent in the present case. It is further submitted that awarding
penal interest in such a case would violate settled legal norms. It was
argued on behalf of the Insurance Company that the grant of such a
rate of interest is on the assumption that the insurance claim is akin
to a commercial receivable, which is not tenable. The interest granted
is excessive and contrary to Section 3(1) of the Interest Act, 1978,
4/24
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2026 23:29:33 :::
901-CARBPL-6069-2023*.docx
which mandates that interest should not exceed the current lending
rate unless supported by a usage of trade or contract. Thus, awarding
penal interest lacks a legal or contractual foundation and is manifestly
arbitrary and against public interest. Public sector insurers operate
under fiduciary and regulatory constraints. Therefore, imposing
punitive interest results in wrongful depletion of public funds, violating
fiscal discipline and solvency standards.
7. The well-reasoned Minority Award dated 3rd October 2022
should be upheld as it reflects the lawful application of contractual
indemnity, judicial precedent, and regulatory compliance. The
reasoning of the Minority Award passes muster under Section 34(2)
(b)(ii) of the Arbitration Act and avoids the pitfalls of perversity that
afflict the Majority Award.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT:
8. The claimant is, inter alia, engaged in the business of handling
and unloading cargo from vessels using cranes. The claimant availed
from the petitioner the said policy on 9 th August 2019. The sum
insured under the said policy was Rs. 25,80,00,000/-. The claimant
paid a premium of Rs. 4,16,000/- inclusive of GST. The said policy
5/24
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2026 23:29:33 :::
901-CARBPL-6069-2023*.docx
insured the said machine for a period from 10 th August 2019 to
9th August 2020.
9. On 26th August 2019, a fire incident occurred at the claimant’s
premises at the Vishakhapatnam Port Trust, where the said machine
was stationed. As a result, the said machine was substantially
damaged. The claimant immediately informed the Insurance
Company of the incident by email dated 26 th August 2019. Thereafter,
the claimant lodged its claim on 24 th December 2019 for a sum of Rs.
3.25 million Euros. The Insurance Company appointed one Mr
Vijaykumar S. Saokar as a surveyor as required by Section 64 UM of
the Insurance Act, 1938. The said surveyor visited the site in question
to examine the machine on 5 occasions, i.e., 28 th August 2019, 29th
August 2019, 10th September 2019, 23rd September 2019, and 15th
October 2019. On 1st September 2019, the surveyor also prepared a
preliminary report and issued a final survey report dated 8 th
November 2019, thereby assessing the claimant’s loss in the sum of
Rs. 11,49,33,500/-. Thereafter, the surveyor issued the 1 st Addendum
Report dated 7th January 2020, wherein the loss assessed was in the
sum of Rs. 11,40,59,325/-, thereby reducing a sum of approximately
Rs. 9 lakhs. Thereafter, the surveyor issued the 2 nd Addendum Report
dated 20th February 2020, wherein the loss assessed was in the sum
6/24
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2026 23:29:33 :::
901-CARBPL-6069-2023*.docx
of Rs. 11,30,19,619/- , thereby reducing the total sum of
approximately Rs. 19 lakhs.
10. The Insurance company was still not satisfied with the reduction
and had appointed an expert, Mr Navin Jain. The said expert issued
an opinion dated 17th June 2020, wherein it was opined that the net
loss suffered by the claimant was in the sum of Rs. 8,37,86,320/-. It is
pertinent to note that through the said opinion, the Insurance
company disregarded the claim assessed by its surveyor. However,
the said opinion was not tendered to the claimant, and the Insurance
company offered only an amount of Rs.8,36,68,320/-. The claimant
executed a settlement voucher on 26 th June 2020, accepting the
aforesaid sum under protest and without prejudice to their rights.
Eventually, the claimant initiated arbitral proceedings and sought an
award in terms of the surveyor’s assessment of loss in his report of 8 th
November 2019. The Insurance Company led evidence through its
Deputy Manager and through Mr Navin Jain, who was the expert who
submitted the said report dated 17 th June 2020. It is settled law that
an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act to set aside an
arbitral award is not akin to an appeal, and therefore, the Court, while
examining the arbitral award, is not required to reappreciate the
evidence.
7/24
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2026 23:29:33 :::
901-CARBPL-6069-2023*.docx
11. An arbitral award can be set aside only if it is against the public
policy of India, in contravention of the fundamental policy of Indian
law, or in conflict with the most basic notions of morality or justice. In
PSA Sical Terminals Pvt. Ltd. V/s. Board of Trustees, 1 the Hon’ble
Apex Court has held that an arbitral award can be set aside only if the
award suffers from a patent illegality on the face of the award and
which goes to the root of the matter. It is also held that while
examining an award, the Court is not expected to act as an Appellate
Court and reappreciate evidence. In the present case, all the grounds
raised in this petition amount to a reappreciation of the evidence
which has already been considered by the Arbitral Tribunal in the
totality of the facts and circumstances. This cannot be a ground for
interference under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
12. The Insurance Company, not satisfied with the surveyor’s
reports, proceeded to appoint an expert who reduced the loss
assessment. Although Section 64 UM of the Insurance Act gives a
right to the insurance company to settle a claim at an amount
different from the one assessed by the surveyor, all the same, the
insurance company cannot keep insisting on multiple survey reports
or appoint more than one surveyor only to get a tailor-made report. In
1
(2023) 15 SCC 781
8/24
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2026 23:29:33 :::
901-CARBPL-6069-2023*.docx
Sri Venkateswara Syndicate V/s. Oriental Insurance Co. 2, Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held that while an insurance company may be
entitled to appoint more than one surveyor, they cannot appoint more
than one surveyor only to get a tailor-made report. If, after receiving a
survey report, an insurance company disagrees with it and wishes to
appoint another surveyor, it must record valid reasons and thereafter
appoint the second surveyor. In the present case, the appointment of
an expert itself is contrary to the law. Section 64 UM of the Insurance
Act only gives the right to appoint a surveyor. Regulation 13(p) of the
Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (Insurance
Surveyors and Loss Assessors) Regulations, 2015 gives the right to
appoint an expert only to the surveyor. Thus, if the surveyor, while
discharging his/her duty, feels that an expert opinion is required, then
he/she is entitled to appoint an expert and avail such expert opinion.
However, the insurance company cannot appoint such an expert.
13. Regulation 15(9) of the Insurance Regulatory Development
Authority of India (Protection of Policyholders Interests) Regulations,
2017 provides that, if the amount admitted as payable by the insurer
is less than the amount claimed, the insurer shall inform the insured
in writing of the basis of settlement. In the present case, admittedly,
2
(2009) 8 SCC 507
9/24
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2026 23:29:33 :::
901-CARBPL-6069-2023*.docx
this has not been done, and in fact, the Insurance Company did not
even inform the claimant about the appointment of Mr Navin Jain as
an expert. When a Court or a judicial forum is confronted with two or
more expert opinions, the court has to consider the soundness of the
reasons given by the expert to form its own opinion on the matters in
question. In the present case, the Arbitral Tribunal has held that the
surveyor, Mr Vijaykumar Saokar, conducted multiple visits to examine
the machine, whereas the cross-examination of Mr Navin Jain
revealed that he had not physically inspected the machine. In these
circumstances, the Arbitral Tribunal rightly held that Mr Navin Jain
cannot be a competent witness in law to technically rebut Mr Saokar’s
report, who had actually conducted multiple site visits and inspected
the damaged machine before issuing the report.
14. Admittedly, no appointment letter was issued to Mr Navin Jain,
which would indicate the scope of his work. The Arbitral Tribunal has
recorded that Mr Navin Jain was appointed only to address the
aspect of depreciation. However, a bare perusal of the expert opinion
dated 17th June 2020, given by him, clearly indicates that, apart from
depreciation, he has opined on the “replacement value of similar type
of machines,” which was clearly not within the scope of his work, as
per the evidence of the Insurance Company. Mr Navin Jain has
10/24
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2026 23:29:33 :::
901-CARBPL-6069-2023*.docx
compared the technical parameters of the damaged machine and an
upgraded model, and, observing a 20% difference, has concluded
that the price difference between the two models would also be 20%.
There is no rationale in his opinion for why the technical parameters
are directly comparable to the price of the machine.
15. Insofar as the interest is concerned, the Arbitral Tribunal has
held that since there was an inordinate delay by the Insurance
Company in making payment to the claimant, interest is ordered to be
paid at the rate of 18% per annum. The grant of interest is in the
discretion of the Arbitral Tribunal, which is ordinarily not interfered
with. The finding of substantial delay on the part of the Insurance
Company in paying the Claimant is a factual finding supported by
evidence. Thus, the award of interest, by the Arbitral Tribunal, on the
ground of substantial delay is reasonable, and thus the aspect of
interest ought not to be interfered with.
16. In PAM Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of West Bengal 3, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court, while construing Section 31(7) of the
Arbitration Act, held that in the event the contract is silent as regards
the interest, the Arbitral Tribunal has the power to award the same. It
is further held that the grant of pre-reference interest is governed by
3
(2024) 10 SCC 715
11/24
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2026 23:29:33 :::
901-CARBPL-6069-2023*.docx
substantive law. In Sayeed Ahmed and Company vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others4, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the
court should not alter the rate of interest granted by the Arbitral
Tribunal unless the award of interest is found to be unwarranted. In
the present case, the Arbitral Tribunal has recorded a reason of
inordinate delay in making the payment for awarding interest. The
Supreme Court has further held that an Arbitral Tribunal may award
interest at such a rate as it deems reasonable for the whole or any
part of the period unless otherwise agreed by the parties. In the
present case, the insurance policy does not prohibit the grant of
interest. Therefore, the present petition ought not to be entertained by
this court.
CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS AND ANALYSIS:
17. I have carefully examined the pleadings, documents, and
evidence with the assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
The basic facts regarding the nature of the policy and the terms and
conditions of the policy are not in dispute. The claimant had
immediately intimated to the Insurance Company of the fire incident
and the damages and loss suffered by the claimant. The reports of
the surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company provide for the
4
(2009) 12 SCC 26
12/24
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2026 23:29:33 :::
901-CARBPL-6069-2023*.docx
particulars of the damage to the insured machinery and the loss
suffered by the claimant. The record shows that all documents and
information requested by the surveyor and the Insurance Company
were provided by the claimant. The particulars of the reports
submitted by the surveyor and the final assessment made by the
surveyor are rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the
claimant, which are recorded in the above paragraphs.
18. On 8th November 2019, a final survey report was issued for an
assessment of Rs. 11,49,33,500/-. The record shows that the
Insurance Company made repeated requests to reassess the
amount. It is alleged that on 2 nd October 2020, the Insurance
Company instructed the surveyor to issue an addendum report
without intimation to the claimant. The record shows that after six
months the surveyor issued an addendum report dated 7 th January
2020 and reduced the amount of loss assessment as per the final
survey report supplied to the claimant. Thereafter, again without the
claimant’s consent, a second addendum report was issued on 20 th
February 2020, further reducing the assessment of the loss. Despite
repeated requests, the Insurance company did not settle the claim,
and the payment was delayed. Ultimately, only Rs. 8,37,86,320/- was
approved on 25th June 2020 as against the final assessment report
13/24
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2026 23:29:33 :::
901-CARBPL-6069-2023*.docx
for Rs 11,30,19,602/-. Thus, after a period of more than ten months
from the date of loss and after a period of almost eight months from
the final survey report issued by the surveyor appointed by the
Insurance Company, the claim was approved on the lower side.
19. After examining the evidence on record, the Tribunal concluded
that there was no justification to reduce the assessment made by the
surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company. It is held that the
Insurance Company failed to examine the surveyor to prove that his
assessment was wrong. The arguments made on behalf of the
Insurance Company on the depreciation factor are rightly discarded
by the Tribunal by referring to the admissions given by the Insurance
company’s witness and on the ground that the surveyor was not
examined to refute his technical assessment in the final report. The
expert opinion’s report is also rightly not accepted by the Tribunal. It
is held that the expert was appointed without any intimation to the
claimant. Although the Insurance Company contended that the expert
was appointed on the aspect of depreciation, the Tribunal, on an
appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, held that the expert had
given an opinion not only on depreciation but also on improvement,
salvage, and other technical factors. Nothing is shown in this petition
that the appointment of an expert by the Insurance company is
14/24
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2026 23:29:33 :::
901-CARBPL-6069-2023*.docx
permissible for independently assessing the loss and discarding the
surveyor’s assessment, which is as per the applicable rules.
20. The Tribunal has also discussed in detail the oral evidence of
the expert, i.e. Mr. Navin Jain and held that he did not possess the
technical expertise required to assess the technical assessment done
by the surveyor. Admittedly, the expert’s opinion was prepared
without any physical inspection of the machine. The Tribunal rightly
discarded the expert’s opinion and his oral evidence as he admitted
that he had no basis for considering the 3.5% deduction in the value
of the machine. Thus, the expert opinion is correctly held as contrary
to Section 64 UM of the Insurance Act. The tribunal has further
examined the surveyor’s assessment reports in detail and found them
to be in accordance with the record produced by the claimant. The
Insurance Company discarded the surveyor’s final assessment report
only by referring to the expert opinion, which was obtained without
any intimation to the claimant.
21. The Tribunal held that the claimant had rightly relied upon the
Insurance Company’s Divisional Office, noting that it accepted the
report dated 8th November 2019 of the surveyor to be correct. The
Tribunal also held that admittedly, the Insurance company had not
even issued an appointment letter to Mr Navin Jain, which throws any
15/24
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2026 23:29:33 :::
901-CARBPL-6069-2023*.docx
light on the scope of his assignment. The Insurance Company had
not recorded any valid reasons for appointing the expert after the
surveyor had submitted the final assessment report, and the expert’s
appointment was made without any intimation to the claimant. The
conduct of the Insurance Company in the present case, in repeatedly
calling upon the surveyor to submit an addendum to the surveyor’s
report and then relying upon the expert’s opinion obtained without
intimation to the claimant, is contrary to the law laid down by the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Sri Venkateswara Syndicate. In the said
decision, the Apex Court discussed the Insurance Surveyors and
Loss Assessors (Licensing, Professional Requirements and Code of
Conduct) Regulations, 2000, formulated by the Insurance Regulatory
Authority, which govern the licensing and work of surveyors. It is held
that the insurance company cannot continue appointing surveyors
one after another to obtain a tailor-made report to the satisfaction of
the officer concerned in the insurance company. It is also held that if,
for any reason, the surveyors’ report is not acceptable, the insurer
must provide a valid reason for not accepting it. With reference to the
scheme of Section 64-UM of the Insurance Act, it held that there is no
prohibition in the Insurance Act for the appointment of a second
surveyor by the insurance company, but while doing so, the
16/24
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2026 23:29:33 :::
901-CARBPL-6069-2023*.docx
insurance company has to give satisfactory reasons for not accepting
the report of the first surveyor and the need to appoint a second
surveyor.
22. On the aspect of grant of interest, it is held in the facts of Sri
Venkateswara Syndicate that the insurer, after rejecting the
assessments of the surveyor and the joint surveyor, has accepted the
assessment made by the chartered accountant. Therefore, the
allegation of an unnecessary three-year delay was not accepted. It is
held that once the insurer has reached a settlement, he should make
the payment at the earliest and if further delay is caused by the
insurer in making the payment then he should be made liable to pay
the interest on the amount settled, as compensation at the current
rate of interest till the payment is made, as it has deprived the insured
from using his money for which he is legitimately entitled.
23. In Sayeed Ahmed and Company, before the Hon’ble Apex
Court, the arbitrator had awarded interest at the rate of 18% per
annum on the amount found due on finalisation of the final bill and
12% per annum on the security deposit amount that was found to be
refunded. The Hon’ble Apex Court held that the award of interest by
the arbitrator was not contrary to Section 31(7)( b) of the Act. It is held
that unless the award of interest is found to be unwarranted for
17/24
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2026 23:29:33 :::
901-CARBPL-6069-2023*.docx
reasons to be recorded, the Court should not alter the rate of interest
awarded by the arbitrator. The reduction in the rate of interest by the
High Court was found to be without any reasons being recorded;
therefore, it was held to be unsustainable.
24. In PAM Developers Pvt. Ltd., the Hon’ble Apex Court held that
Section 31(7)(a) of the 1996 Act provides pre-reference and
pendente lite interest, and it sanctifies party autonomy and restricts
the power to grant pre-reference and pendente lite interest the
moment the agreement bars payment of interest, even if it is not a
specific bar against the arbitrator. It is further held that the arbitrator’s
power to award pre-reference and pendente lite interest is not
restricted when the agreement is silent on whether interest may be
awarded.
25. In the present case, the Tribunal has discussed Regulation 9(6)
of the IRDA (Protection of Policy Holders Interest) Regulations 2002,
which provides that the claimant is entitled to interest on the delayed
payment in settlement of their claim @ 2% above the prevailing
lending rate for any delay beyond 90 days from the date of the
appointment of the surveyor. The Tribunal further observed that the
date of loss was 26th August 2019; the surveyor was appointed, who
visited the site on 29th August 2019; the final survey report was
18/24
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2026 23:29:33 :::
901-CARBPL-6069-2023*.docx
issued on 8th November 2019; and the date of the discharge voucher
is 9th July 2020. Therefore, the tribunal held that there was a
substantial delay of 11 months from the date of appointment of the
surveyor till the date of making payment under the discharge
voucher. The Tribunal referred to the particulars of the claim, in which
the claimant has claimed interest on the principal amount at 18%
from 29th November 2019, i.e., three months from the date of
appointment of the surveyor, till 9th July 2020, being the date of
payment under the discharge voucher. The Tribunal has further
referred to the particulars of the claim, where the claimant has prayed
for further interest at 18% per annum on the principal amount from 9 th
July 2020, that is, the date of payment under the discharge voucher,
till 11th March 2021, being the date of filing of the statement of claim.
26. In the present case, the principal amount is the difference
between the amount assessed by the surveyor in the final survey
report and the amount settled by the Insurance Company, which is
lower. The Tribunal further referred to the particulars of the claim, in
which the total amount of Rs. 3,73,88,392/- is claimed by the
claimants, which is the principal amount plus interest from the date of
payment under the discharge voucher till the date of filing of the
statement of claim. The Tribunal has granted the claim of Rs.
19/24
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2026 23:29:33 :::
901-CARBPL-6069-2023*.docx
3,73,88,392/- together with further interest @ 18% from the date of
the statement of claim till realisation. Therefore, the Tribunal has
allowed the prayer for interest on the principal amount from the date
of the discharge voucher until the date of filing the claim, and for
further interest from the date of the statement of claim until realisation
of the amount. Hence, it was argued on behalf of the Insurance
Company that the grant of such interest is excessive and contrary to
section 3(1) of the Interest Act, which mandates that interest should
not exceed the current lending rate unless supported by a usage of
trade or contract, which is absent in the present case.
27. However, the issue of grant of interest as per the Regulation
9(6) of the IRDA (Protection of Policy Holders Interest) Regulations
2002, which provides that the claimant is entitled to interest on the
delayed payment in settlement of their claim @ 2% above the
prevailing lending rate for any delay beyond 90 days from the date of
the appointment of the surveyor, is not necessary. As discussed in
the above paragraph, the Tribunal has not granted any interest from
the date of appointment of the surveyor till settlement of the claim.
What is granted is the interest on the principal amount (the difference
between the amount assessed by the surveyor in the final survey
report and the amount settled by the Insurance Company, which is
20/24
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2026 23:29:33 :::
901-CARBPL-6069-2023*.docx
lower) from the date of settlement of the claim ( the date of Discharge
Voucher accepted by the claimant under protest) till filing of the
statement of claim and the further interest.
28. In the present case, inordinate delay by the Insurance
Company in making payment to the claimant is considered as an
important factor by the Arbitral Tribunal, which cannot be interfered
with in the absence of any valid ground to challenge the conclusions
recorded by the Tribunal. The finding of substantial delay on the part
of the Insurance Company in paying the claimant is a factual finding
recorded by the Tribunal, which is also supported by evidence. The
fire incident is of 26th August 2019, and the claimant immediately
informed the Insurance Company on the same day. The Insurance
Company appointed a surveyor who visited the site on 29 th August
2019. A preliminary report was submitted on 1 st September 2019. A
final report was issued on 8 th November 2019. Thereafter, the
Insurance company raised queries, and the claimant satisfied all the
surveyor’s requisitions, after which the surveyor issued an Addendum
Report on 7th January 2020. Thereafter, the second Addendum
Report was issued on 20th February 2020.
29. However, the claimant was not paid. The claimant addressed
emails requesting the Insurance Company to release payments and
21/24
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2026 23:29:33 :::
901-CARBPL-6069-2023*.docx
informed that the claimant was facing difficulties as it had received
notices from their lender banks. The claimant also forwarded copies
of the notices and intimated that it was unable to meet its working
capital requirement due to the loss suffered, and thus requested the
release of the payment. The claimant issued emails and reminder
emails on 11th March 2020, 19th March 2020, 13th April 2020, 13th May
2020 and 27th May 2020. The claimant again requested to settle the
claim by issuing emails on 8th June 2020 and 15th June 2020. Finally,
the insurance company approved the amount on 25 th June 2020, but
on a very low side. However, the claimant accepted the amount
under protest and sent an email to the insurance company on 17 th
July 2020, requesting that they provide the final workings for the
amounts approved by the insurance company.
30. Based on the evidence on record, it was a considered view of
the Tribunal that the claimant was entitled to interest on the ground of
substantial delay caused by the Insurance Company to settle the
claim and make payment. Hence, the Tribunal has granted interest at
the rate of 18% per annum, as prayed by the claimant in terms of the
particulars of the claim. The Apex Court in PSA Sical Terminals Pvt.
Ltd. held that, while examining a challenge to an award, the Court
cannot act as an Appellate Court and reappreciate evidence.
22/24
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2026 23:29:33 :::
901-CARBPL-6069-2023*.docx
31. I find substance in the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the claimant that any interference in the findings recorded
by the Tribunal would amount to reappreciating the evidence on
record, which is not permissible under Section 34 of the Arbitration
Act. The law regarding the permissibility of interference under Section
34 of the Arbitration Act is no longer res integra. The legal principle is
well-established that an arbitral award can be interfered with under
Section 34 of the Arbitration Act only on the grounds of judicial
approach, patent illegality, breach of the principles of natural justice,
contravention of law, and perversity. In view of the well-established
legal principles, the Section 34 Court must not lightly interfere with
arbitral awards in a casual and cavalier manner, unless a conclusion
can be drawn that the award is perverse and it goes to the root of the
matter. It is also well-settled that the mandate under Section 34 is to
respect the finality of the arbitral award and the party autonomy to get
their dispute adjudicated by an alternative forum; otherwise, the
alternative dispute resolution opted for would stand frustrated.
32. In the present case, the arguments raised on behalf of the
petitioner would amount to a reappreciation of the evidence. As
discussed in the aforesaid paragraphs, the Tribunal has considered
the entire evidence and recorded reasons to grant the claim. None of
23/24
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2026 23:29:33 :::
901-CARBPL-6069-2023*.docx
the grounds raised by the petitioner would be covered under the
scope of interference under Section 34. Hence, in my view, by
applying the standards as set out in the various decisions as
discussed above, the arbitral award cannot be interfered with under
Section 34 of the Arbitration Act.
33. Hence, for the reasons recorded above, the Arbitration Petition
is rejected.
[GAURI GODSE, J.]
24/24
::: Uploaded on – 23/04/2026 ::: Downloaded on – 23/04/2026 23:29:33 :::
