JUDGMENT
Gumsharan Sharma, J.
1. Bus No.
W.G.W. 369 was owned by Uday Kumar Agarwal. It was insured for the period 16.12.1988 to 15.12.1989, under comprehensive policy of insurance with New India Assurance Company Limited.
2. On 15.8.1989, the said vehicle met with ah accident and it was badly damaged therein. The Insurance Company deputed surveyor to assess damages and loss to the said vehicle, caused in the said accident. On instruction of said surveyor, vehicle was
repaired and all the bills of expenses, incurred on repairs with cash memoes were submitted. Owner of the vehicle claimed that a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- was spent over repairs.
3. It is said that surveyor of the Insurance Company settled the claim at Rs. 38,500/- towards labour charges plus cost of ditlerent parts as per settlement note dated 24.1.1989. Accordingly, the Insurance Company Offered a sum of Rs. 39,922/- to the owner.
4. Arbitration Clause 8 of the Insurance policy provided that if any difference would arise as to the quantum to be paid under the policy, such difference shall independently of all other quest ions, be referred to the decision of an Arbitrator to be appointed in writing by the parties in difference. In the said clause, it was clarified that it was clearly agreed and understood that no difference or dispute shall be referable to the Arbitration as hereinbefore provided, if t he Company has disputed or not accepted liability under or in respect of the policy.
5. Accordingly, both parties appointed one Arbitrator each and one Umpire was also appointed. Both parties filed their statements of claim before Arbitrators, who submitted Award dated 26.12.1990 directing Insurance Company to pay Rs. 63,380/- with interest @ 12% to owner of the bus, on account of loss and damages caused to it in the accident dated 15.8.1989 and the said Award has been made Rule of Court by impugned judgment/order dated 18.12.1993.
6. On behalf of appellant-Insurance/ Company it is submitted that learned Arbitrators as well as Court below, while making award Rule of Court failed to consider preliminary objection raised on behalf of Insurance Company that arbitration proceeding was not maintainable, inasmuch as aforesaid arbitration clause No. 8 could not have been invoked in the present case as liability for payment of compensation was denied by the insurance Company.
7. There is no substance in this submission. Admittedly after the accident in question, the Insurance Company deputed one surveyor to assess the extent of damages caused to the Bus, who after assessment submitted his report and it is said that the claim was settled and offer was also made on behalf of Insurance Company to the owner. As such
it is not correct to say that Insurance Company ever denied its liability to pay any compensation for the accident in question.
8. I do not find that there was any misconduct on the part of the Arbitrators and no other infirmity has been pointed out in the impugned award.
9. Owner of the vehicle rightly invoked arbitration Clause 8 and there is no reason to interfere with the impugned award as well as the judgment/order whereby the said award was made Rule of Court.
10. There is no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly dismissed, but without costs. Lower Court records may be sent down.
11. Appeal dismissed.