Summary
The Court restored an umpire’s award for fire-damaged jute stock after the courts below rejected increased insurance cover and the valuation adopted. Acceptance and adjustment of the enhanced premium supported estoppel by conduct, while the purchase evidence supported the valuation. These were permissible arbitral findings under the1940 Act.
Issues
- Whether the courts could displace the umpire’s findings on enhanced insurance cover and jute valuation as legal misconduct.
Held
- The insurer’s conduct included encashing and adjusting additional premium, beyond silence in response to the insured’s letter. The umpire could reasonably find it estopped from denying increased cover. Polymat, involving proposed amendments not mutually accepted, did not compel a different conclusion. (¶ 8–9)
- Unrebutted purchase-price evidence could support market value at the fire date in these circumstances. The umpire’s valuation was a possible factual view and the courts could not replace it through appellate reassessment. (¶¶ 8, 10)
- No apparent legal error or legal misconduct, including disregard of vital evidence, was established. The award was restored and payment directed to the insured within three months, accepting that the bank’s dues had been discharged. (¶ 10–11)
Result
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside and umpire’s award upheld; insurer directed to pay the appellant under the award within three months.