1 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ARBITRATION PETITION NO. 357 of 2007 Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. .. Petitioner versus Shri Paresh N. Shah .. Respondent ... Mr.Mehul Shetty with Ms.Kavita Anchal i/b M.V. Kini & Co. for the petitioner. Mr.Anilkumar Patil for the respondent. CORAM : D.G.KARNIK, J DATED : 17th June 2008 P.C.: 1. By this petition, the petitioner challenges the award dated 9th April 2007 passed by the sole arbitrator. 2. The petitioner is an insurance company. The respondent is an owner of motor vehicle bearing registration no.Mh-04-AT-9856 which is a Ford Escort 2 Car. The vehicle was insured with the petitioner under a Private Car Package Policy of comprehensive insurance. The vehicle met with an accident on 12th August 2003. Since the claim was declined, the respondent referred the claim for an arbitration. The learned arbitrator awarded Rs.6,11,525/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 10% per annum from 1st December 2003 till payment and/or realisation. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned arbitrator erred in not deducting the value of wreck (salvage) and awarding the claim without taking into consideration the salvage damage. He submitted that under condition no.3 of the Private Car Package Policy, the insurance company was liable to pay the "Insured’s Declared Value" (IDV) as specified in the schedule less the value of the wreck. The arbitrator, therefore, ought to have deducted the value of wreck from the claim. 4. In my view, the submission does not have any merit for two reasons. Firstly, I perused clause no.3 of the Private Car Package Policy, copy of which is filed at page no.35. The said clause is also extracted in paragraph no.5 of the petition. The said clause nowhere speaks of the liability being 3 restricted to insure declared value less the value of the wreck. Secondly, assuming that on general principle, the value of the wreck is to be deducted. It is not shown that the insured was in possession of the wreck and/or was capable of realising in value of it. The claim was of a total loss. Obviously on payment of the value of the car, the wreck would belong to the insurance company as it has paid the total value and it is free for the petitioner insurance company to deal with the wreck and realise value of it. The value so realised would belong to the petitioner insurance company and obviously, the respondent would not be in a position to claim the value as he has been fully indemnified by payment of a total loss. In the circumstances, I see no merit in the contention that the value of the wreck should be deducted from the insurance claim payable. 5. No other point was urged. There is no merit in the petition which is hereby dismissed summarily. (D.G. KARNIK, J)