M. K. Chawla ( 1 ) IN a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, the case set up by the petitioner Goodwill India Ltd. , in brief, is that this Co. is engaged in the business of hire purchase of motor vehicles etc. throughout India and in due course of its business purchased a motor vehicle bearing Engine No. 692. D01. 7. 12739, Chassis No. 344. 173. 7. 11894 from M/s. Union Motors, Sriganganagar vide Invoice No. 2693 dated 14. 12 79 for a sum of Rs. 2,04. 315. 00. This very vehicle was hired out to respondent No. 1 under the hire purchase agreement dated 14. 12. 79 for which the respondent No. 2 stood as guarantor. All the terms and conditions of the agreement were duly explained to the respondents and they did not raise any objection to the same. Thereafter, the said vehicle was registered with the Registering Authority and was allotted Regn. No. RJP-3751. In the records of the Registering Authority it also contained an endorsement that the vehicle is under hire purchase agreement with the petitioner Co. In terms of the hire purchase agreement the respondents acknowledged that the petitioner Co. is the absolute owner of the vehicle with fittings, tools, tryres and accessories, inclusive of body built therein or to be built by the hirer. As per clause VI-A of the agreement, all disputes, differences and/or claims arising out of the said hire purchase agreement were required to be settled by arbitration and to be referred to the iole arbitration of Sh. Inderjit Gulati, Advocate, Delhi or in case of his death, refusal, neglect or incapability to act as an Arbitrator then to the sole arbitration of Sh. Chander Mohan Oberoi, Advocate. The respondent No. 1 bad agreed to pay the total sum of Rs. 2,28. 600. 00 in 41 monthly hires w. e. f. 14. 2. 80 of 5,600. 00 and the last being of 4,600. 00 besides over due hire money, compensation charges for late payment and insurance expenses which may be incurred by the petitioner on behalf of respondent No. 1. Respondent No. 1 did not make any payment to the petitioner Co. in accordance with the terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreement and became irregular. Inspite of sending of several reminders, notices, the respondents have not cared to discharge their liability under the hire purchase agreement. Respondent No. 1 did not make any payment to the petitioner Co. in accordance with the terms and conditions of the hire purchase agreement and became irregular. Inspite of sending of several reminders, notices, the respondents have not cared to discharge their liability under the hire purchase agreement. The petitioner Co. has to recover a total sum of Rs. 89,400. 00 towards over due hire money and Rs. 62. 439. 00 as compensation charges for late payments besides charges for insurance premium. The total amount comes to Rs. 1,51,839. 00. In view of the breaches of the hire purchase agreement committed by the respondents, the petitioner Co. has become entitled to repossess the vehicle and the disputes which arise out of the agreement are liable to be referred to the sole arbitrator named in the agreement. The respondent No. 2 was served by ordinary process and as none put in appearance on his behalf was proceeded ex pane vide order dated 15-3-85 of this court. Respondent No. 1 could not be served by ordinary process as well as by registered A. D. post on repeated demands and was served by publication in the Statesman dated 15-2-86. None on their behalf care to put in appearance and was proceeded ex parte. ( 2 ) THE petitioner filed the affidavit of Sh. Vishal Chand by way of evidence in support of the petition. In this affidavit, Sh. Vishal Chand claims himself to be the general attorney of the petitioner Co. He also indatified his signatures on the petition, verification and the power of attorney executed by him in favour of his counsel. He has also annexed along with the affidavit the original hire purchase agreement. As per his evidence, this agreement was signed by respondent No. 1 as hirer and respondent No. 2 as the guarnator. He also identified his signatures and that of other two witnesses on the agreement. As per his deposition the respondents have signed the agreement in his presence after understanding the contents thereof. They had also agreed to the appointment of named arbitrator in case of any differences arising out of this agreement. He also identified his signatures and that of other two witnesses on the agreement. As per his deposition the respondents have signed the agreement in his presence after understanding the contents thereof. They had also agreed to the appointment of named arbitrator in case of any differences arising out of this agreement. The respondents were required to pay the hire charges as per schedule B of the agreement but immediately after taking possession of the vehicle they failed and neglected to pay any of the hire charges, compensation charges for late payment and insurance expenses as per the agreement, as a result of which a sum of Rs. l,51,839. 00has become due from the respondents. The respondents have also not handed over the possession of the vehicle. ( 3 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and with his help gone through the record and the oral as documentary evidence placed and proved on record. ( 4 ) THE contents of the petition find full corroboration from the evidence of Sh. Vishal Chand and the documents placed on record. The disputes regarding the payment of hire charges, compensation charges and insurance expenses have arisen between the parties. Besides that the question of the repossession of the vehicle is also involved which can only be decided by the arbitrator. ( 5 ) AS a result of the above discussion, I hereby accept the petition and appoint Sh. Inderjit Gulati as the sole arbitrator to enter upon the reference and decide the disputes mentioned in the petition and publish his award within 4 Months from the date he enters upon the reference.