Supreme Court of India
United India Insurance Co. Ltd vs Bansal Wood Products Pvt. Ltd on 8 January, 2025
2025 INSC 39 NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.104 OF 2025
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (C) No.15799 of 2023)
UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. .…. APPELLANT
VERSUS
BANSAL WOOD PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. ..…RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
MANMOHAN, J
The present appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and order
dated 02nd February, 2023 passed by the High Court of Delhi in
FAO(Comm.) No.76/2022 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal
filed by the appellant-insurance company.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant-insurance company submits that
the High Court and the Arbitral Tribunal failed to give any reason as to why
the respondent-claimant was entitled to interest for the various periods of
delay which were attributable to the respondent-claimant. He states that the
Arbitral Tribunal and the High Court failed to appreciate that the
Signature Not Verified
respondent-claimant delayed the process of reference to arbitration by
Digitally signed by
Deepak Guglani
about four years between the period 21st January, 2003 and 01st December,
Date: 2025.01.08
17:57:59 IST
Reason:
2006 as it was pursuing its consumer complaint before the National
Civil Appeal 104 of 2025 Page 1 of 3
Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission during this period. He furthercontends that even after reference to arbitration in December, 2006, the
respondent-claimant delayed the arbitration proceedings and it was only on
06th March, 2010 that the Arbitral Tribunal condoned the delay in making
reference to arbitration by excluding the time spent by the respondent-
claimant in pursuing the remedy before the National Consumer Disputes
Redressal Commission.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent-claimant states that as
the appellant-insurance company failed to pay the insurance claim, the
respondent-claimant was constrained to seek legal remedy, first by
approaching National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission and then
by invoking the arbitration agreement between the parties. He contends that
the respondent-claimant approached the Consumer Commission on the
basis of legal advice. He further states that as the appellant-insurance
company failed to perform its contractual obligation, it cannot refuse to pay
interest for the delayed payment. He also submits that though the appellant-
insurance company raised the defence that the claim was barred by
limitation, yet the Arbitral Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the
respondent-claimant giving the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the
view that in the peculiar facts and circumstance of the present case, the ends
Civil Appeal 104 of 2025 Page 2 of 3
of justice would be met if the appellant-insurance company is directed to
pay interest as directed by the Arbitral Tribunal @ 12% per annum with
effect from 06th March, 2010 as it was on this date that the Arbitral Tribunal
held the claims to be within time after excluding the time spent by the
respondent-claimant in pursuing its remedy before the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission under Section 14 of the Limitation Act.
5. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and Arbitral Award is
varied/modified only to the aforesaid extent. The appellant-insurance
company is directed to make the payment of the outstanding balance
amount to the respondent-claimant within four weeks.
6. With the aforesaid direction, the present appeal along with pending
applications, if any, stands disposed of.
.……………….J.
[ABHAY S. OKA]
……………….J.
[MANMOHAN]
New Delhi;
January 8, 2025.
Civil Appeal 104 of 2025 Page 3 of 3