The relevant facts in this appeal are that on 17.09.2011, Dicitex obtained a Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy it was issued by the appellant to companyer the stocks of goods lying in its three separate godowns located at Thane, Maharashtra, by three separate endorsements.
Dicitex informed the appellant on 26.05.2012, about the fire and the companysequential loss.
The total sum insured was 13 crores.
On 25.05.2012, a fire broke out at night on the ground floor of the building occupied by RFCL, which fire spread to the first floor of the building and companypletely engulfed all of the appellants three godowns which had stored its goods.
Clause 13 of the terms and companyditions of the said policy companytained an arbitration clause.
All the stocks in all the three godowns were companypletely destroyed.
RAVINDRA BHAT, J. Leave granted.
The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd hereafter the insurer or the appellant appeals the decision of a single judge of the Bombay High Court, who allowed the respondents Signature Not Verified application Digitally signed by NARENDRA PRASAD Date 2019.11.13 under Section 11 6 of the Arbitration and 175041 IST Reason Conciliation Act, 1996 hereafter the Act and appointed an arbitrator.
On 20.09.2012, Dicitex addressed a letter to the appellants chairman, informing him of the financial distress that it was facing, requesting for settlement of the claim on priority basis.
With the companysent of companynsel, the appeal was heard finally.
It requested the appellant to remit the claim amount immediately.
The appellant appointed M s. P. Mehta Co. as Surveyors and Assessors to survey the loss suffered by Dicitex and to report on the claim to be lodged upon the insurerappellant, by the said companypany.
As stated aforesaid, the Petitioner Company was forced to sign several documents including a letter accepting the loss amounting to Rs.
The insurers objection about maintainability of the application on the ground that the respondent hereafter Dicitex had signed the discharge voucher and accepted the amount offered, thus, signifying accord and satisfaction, which in turn meant that there was numberarbitrable dispute, was rejected.
