NAVADGI, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree dated November 23, 1977, made by the Additional Civil Judge, Kolar, in O. S. No. 10 of 1974, on his file. ( 2 ) THE appellant and respondents in this appeal would be hereinafter referred, with reference to the rank and position given to them in the array in the original suit. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff-society instituted the suit, out of which this appeal has arisen, for recovery of a sum of Rs 31,602 including notice charges of Rs 100 and interest of Rs 7,544. 44 on Rs 23,957. 56 with costs, current interest and such other reliefs as the court may deem it fit to grant to the plaintiff in the circumstances. ( 4 ) THE averments in the plaint are these : The plaintiff-society insured the electrical goods in the premises of its electrical section with defendant No 1 against accidents of fire and consequent losses under policy No 12320600. Defendant No 1 accepted the policy and assured the plaintiff against any losses due to accidents by fire. ( 5 ) ON June 17, 1972, the electrical goods stored in the electrical section of the plaintiff were damaged due to accidental fire, resulting in a total loss of Rs 23,957. 56. The plaintiff reported the occurrence to defendants Nos. 1 and 2 and the authorised of the Department of Co-operation. The divisional manager of defendant No 1, arrayed as defendant No 2, advised the plaintiff to send the claim forms in order to settle the claim of the plaintiff. ( 6 ) AT the request of defendants Nos. 1 and 2, the fire loss surveyor and assessor, examined as P w -1 at the trial of the suit, was deputed to estimate the loss that resulted in the fire accident. P w -1 inspected the premises of the plaintiff and assessed the loss at Rs 22,475. 25. ( 7 ) DEFENDANT No 2 assured the plaintiff about the settlement of the claim on several and agreed to compensate the loss by payment of money. But defendants Nos. 1 and 2 put off the payment for no valid reasons at all. P w -1 inspected the premises of the plaintiff and assessed the loss at Rs 22,475. 25. ( 7 ) DEFENDANT No 2 assured the plaintiff about the settlement of the claim on several and agreed to compensate the loss by payment of money. But defendants Nos. 1 and 2 put off the payment for no valid reasons at all. The defendants informed the plaintiff in the month of April, 1973, by the letter marked as exhibit P-15, offering to pay a sum of Rs 5,000 in full settlement of the claim without assigning any reasons for reducing the claim put forward by it. ( 8 ) THE defendants, by their own assessment of the loss, correspondence carried on with the plaintiff and conduct, have conceded the total loss suffered by the plaintiff as claimed. So, the stand taken by them is unreasonable, unjustified and devoid of any reasons. ( 9 ) WITH these averments, the plaintiff instituted the suit on April 1, 1974, for recovery of the money. ( 10 ) DEFENDANTS Nos. 1 and 2 in their joint written statement, while admitting the fact of the plaintiff having insured the electrical goods against free accidents and consequential loss under the policy referred to in the plaint, contended that the insurance was subject to the terms and stipulations mentioned in the policy and that the suit was not maintainable by virtue of clause 18 of the policy expressly providing for arbitration as a condition precedent to any right of action or suit upon the policy. They denied the averments in the plaint with regard to the damage suffered by the electrical goods in the electrical section of the plaintiff on June 17, 1972, due to any accidental fire, adding that the say of the plaintiff that the total loss was in a sum of Rs 23,957. 56 was not correct. The contended that the claim put forth by the plaintiff was false, fraudulent and exaggerate. ( 11 ) ACCORDING to the defendants, the loss at Rs 22,375. 25 arrived at by P W -1 was baseless and was made on the basis of the plaintiff's self-serving statement and the books of account. Defendants Nos. 56 was not correct. The contended that the claim put forth by the plaintiff was false, fraudulent and exaggerate. ( 11 ) ACCORDING to the defendants, the loss at Rs 22,375. 25 arrived at by P W -1 was baseless and was made on the basis of the plaintiff's self-serving statement and the books of account. Defendants Nos. 1 and 2 denied the assurance imputed to them and stated that they agreed to pay rs 5,000 only in full settlement of the claim, subject to the acceptance of the same by the head office of defendant No 1 company. ( 12 ) ACCORDING to them, the amount of Rs 5,000 offered was agreed as ex gratia payment after discussion with the secretary of the plaintiff, examined as P W-3. They also contended that the plaintiff had not complied with the terms and conditions of the policy, particularly clauses 11, 12 and 13, adding that in view of the non-compliance with the aforesaid clauses, the plaintiff was not entitled to any benefit under the terms of the policy. ( 13 ) ON the basis of these pleadings, the learned civil judge formulated as many as 5 issues for adjudication. The issues read thus : 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the electrical goods in the electrical section of the plaintiff-society were damaged due to the accidental fire resulting in a total loss of Rs 23,957. 56? 2. Whether the plaintiff further proves that the second defendant offered in his letter of April, 1973, to pay Rs 5,000 in full settlement of the claim? 3. Whether the defendants prove that the plaintiffs have not complied with the terms and conditions of the policy particularly clauses 11, 12 and 13 to negative their claim to the benefit under the policy? 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable by virtue of clause 18 of the insurance policy? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs 31,601? Whether the defendants prove that the plaintiffs have not complied with the terms and conditions of the policy particularly clauses 11, 12 and 13 to negative their claim to the benefit under the policy? 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable by virtue of clause 18 of the insurance policy? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs 31,601? ( 14 ) AT the trial of the suit, the plaintiff examined T R Kathirvelu (P W - 1), fire loss surveyor and assessor, who, at the instance of the defendants, went to the premises of the plaintiff-society and assessed the loss, M Hanumantha Reddi (P W -2), who was working in the office of the deputy Registrar of Co-operative Societies at Kolar at the material time and who, on being deputed at the request of the plaintiff, had gone to the premises of the plaintiff-society to estimate the loss, and Syed Shahabuddin (P W - 3), the secretary of the plaintiff-society. In all, seven documents came to be admitted in evidence for the plaintiff. ( 15 ) AS against this, on behalf of the defendants, R Nandalal gave evidence as D W -1. Four documents were admitted in evidence for the defendants. ( 16 ) THE learned civil judge, on consideration of the evidence, held that the plaintiff had failed to establish that the damage due to accidental fire resulted in a total loss of Rs 23,957. 56. He also held that the defendants had established non-compliance with clauses 11 to 13 of the policy by the plaintiff. It was his conclusion that in view of the plaintiff not having availed of the arbitration clause in the policy, it was not entitled to maintain a suit. Recording his findings accordingly on all the issues, the learned civil judge dismissed the suit with no order as to costs. ( 17 ) THE points that arise for determination in this appeal are these : 1. Whether the plaintiff has established that the total loss suffered by it as a result of the accidental fire, damaging its electrical goods, was in a sum of Rs 23,957. 56? 2. Whether the plaintiff has shown that its suit was maintainable notwithstanding the fact that it had not availed of the arbitration clause in the policy? 3. Whether the judgment and decree of the court below are correct and legal? 56? 2. Whether the plaintiff has shown that its suit was maintainable notwithstanding the fact that it had not availed of the arbitration clause in the policy? 3. Whether the judgment and decree of the court below are correct and legal? ( 18 ) OUR findings on the above points are in the negative on points Nos. 1 and 2 and in the affirmative on point No 3. ( 19 ) THE evidence of PW-1 would show that he visited the premises of the plaintiff-society on june 21, 1972, with the representative of defendantg No 1 company and assessed the damage caused to the electrical goods by verifying the account books of the plaintiff such as stock register, stock verification register, daily sales book, purchase invoices book, and the statement of stock submitted to the District Central Co-operative Bank, furnished by the plaintiff each fortnight. It is in his evidence that according to the stock register, the value of the stock of electrical goods in the sales room was about Rs 44,00; that some of them were found affected by fire and damaged; that he took an inventory of the undamaged electrical goods; that the value of the undamaged electrical goods was Rs 10,000; and that the remaining goods worth Rs 34,000 were to be accounted for, PW-1 has clearly stated that it was the sales clerk of the society who prepared the list of electrical goods involved in the accident; that he did not depend upon that list and asked the special officer to certify the list and after receiving the certificate from the special officer, he assessed the loss. It is his evidence that the value of the salvage left over was to an extent of Rs 2,800 and the same was handed over to the plaintiff. ( 20 ) WE may observe here that the sales clerk of the society, who prepared the list of electrical goods involved in the accidents, has not been examined by the plaintiff at the trial of the suit. The plaintiff also gave no explanation for non-examination of the sales clerk, whose evidence was the best evidence available to it to prove the claim. ( 21 ) EXHIBIT P-2 is the certificate issued by PW-1 to the plaintiff, estimating the loss at Rs 23,825. 25. The plaintiff also gave no explanation for non-examination of the sales clerk, whose evidence was the best evidence available to it to prove the claim. ( 21 ) EXHIBIT P-2 is the certificate issued by PW-1 to the plaintiff, estimating the loss at Rs 23,825. 25. The evidence of PW-1 would show that he sent two reports, one preliminary and another final, to the defendants. Exhibit D-1 is the report and exhibit D-2 is the clarification given by him on certain points asked by defendant No 2. The admissions of PW-1 would go to show that from the account books produced by the plaintiff, he could not find the description of the electrical goods damaged by fire and that on the basis of the certificate issued by the special officer, he made the assessment. It is in his evidence that he did not go to the office of the deputy Registrar to verify the truth of the certificate. He revised his preliminary report on the basis of the said certificate and sent his final report. These admissions make it amply clear that there was no material before PW-1 which could have enabled him to inspect the electrical goods with a view to ascertain the extent of loss. The evidence of PW-2 would not in any manner help the plaintiff in establishing the claim put forward by him as the loss occasioned as a result of the accidental fire. It is in the evidence of PW-2 that after inspecting the burnt and unburnt electrical goods, he called for accounts of the electrical goods from the secretary; that the audit report, invoices and cash book were produced before him; and that he was informed that the stock book was also burnt. On the basis of the opening stock as on July 1, 1971, the purchases made from july 1, 1971, to June 17, 1972, the sales effected and the stock available, he estimated the value of the burnt electrical goods at Rs 23,825. 19. The opening balance of the electrical goods as on july 1, 1971, was of Rs 60,206. 03. The purchases made from July 1, 1971, to June 17, 1972, amounted to Rs 44,615. 78. Thus, the total stock as on June 17, 1972, amounted to Rs 1,04,821. 81. The stock available as on June 17, 1972, was of the value of Rs 30,416. 02. Part of it was burnt. 03. The purchases made from July 1, 1971, to June 17, 1972, amounted to Rs 44,615. 78. Thus, the total stock as on June 17, 1972, amounted to Rs 1,04,821. 81. The stock available as on June 17, 1972, was of the value of Rs 30,416. 02. Part of it was burnt. There is no explanation from any of the witnesses examined on behalf of the plaintiff as to what happened to the balance stock worth Rs 23,000 and odd PW-2 did not inspect the stock register and purchase register expected to be in the custody of the secretary, and the sales receipt books showing the sales. Details of the electrical goods were not found mentioned in exhibit P-7, the cash book. The accounts of the society from July 1, 1971, to June 17, 1972, had not been audited. ( 22 ) ADMITTEDLY, the stock register was not produced either before PW-1 or before PW-2. PW-2 in his cross-examination has stated that there would be in the custody of the secretary. It is also in his cross-examination that the sales book and the stock book would give the correct picture of the articles that are said to have been burnt. PW-3, the secretary of the plaintiff-society in his evidence stated that the stock book of the electrical goods was with him and not with the sales clerk. PW-3 denied the suggestion that the stock book had not been placed along with the electrical goods and was not burnt. In his further cross-examination, he stated that the verification statement book was also in the electrical section and it was also burnt. It is difficult to accept the plaintiff's case that the stock book and the verification statement book which were not expected to be kept in the electrical section where the electrical goods had been stored, were burnt. The verification register containing the vertification of electrical goods was not produced before the trial court on the ground that it did not relate to electrical goods. The verification register containing the vertification of electrical goods was not produced before the trial court on the ground that it did not relate to electrical goods. ( 23 ) THE learned civil judge, referring to the evidence of PW-1 and the initial estimation of loss made by him and reading the evidence of PWs-2 and 3 and the other documentary evidence, exhibit P-5, the audit report, exhibit P-6 the invoices and exhibit P-7 the cash book, has rightly held that the plaintiff has failed to establish the total loss as claimed by it in the suit. The sales clerk of the plaintiff-society who prepared the statement of electrical goods said to have been burnt on memory and who assisted PW-1 in the estimation of loss, and the special officer who had certified the list of electrical goods involved in the fire accident (prepared by the sales clerk), were not examined by the plaintiff. In the absence of the evidence of these witnesses, the documentary evidence lost its probative value and could not come to the help of the plaintiff, who withheld the best available evidence from the court in establishing the loss. ( 24 ) FOR the reasons aforesaid, we concur with the findings recorded by the learned civil judge on issues Nos. 1 and 5. ( 25 ) THE learned civil judge, after extracting clauses 11, 12, 13, and 18, has held that the plaintiff has not complied with clauses 11 to 13. He has also held that the plaintiff's suit was not maintainable by virtue of clause 18 of the policy. Clause 18 of the policy reads thus : "if any difference arises as to the amount of any loss or damage, such deference shall, independently of all other questions, be referred to the decision of an arbitrator, to be appointed in writing by the parties in difference, or, if they cannot agree upon a single arbitrator, to the decision of two disinterested persons as arbitrators of whom one shall be appointed in writing by each of the parties within two calendar months after having been required so to do in writing by the other party. In case either party shall refuse or fail to appoint an arbitrator within two calendar months after receipt of notice in writing requiring an appointment, the other party shall be at liberty to appoint a sole arbitrator; and n case of disagreement between the arbitrators, the difference shall be referred to the decision of an umpire who shall have been appointed by them in writing before entering on the reference and who shall sit with the arbitrators and preside at their meetings. The death of any party shall not revoke or affect the authority or powers of the arbitrator, arbitrators, or umpire respectively; and in the event of the death of an arbitrator or umpire, another shall, in each case, be appointed in his stead by the party or arbitrators (as the case may be) by whom the arbitrators or umpire so dying was appointed. The costs of the reference and of the awards shall be in the description of the arbitrator, arbitrators or umpire making the award. And it is hereby expressly stipulated and declared that it shall be a condition precedent to any right of action or suit upon this policy that the award by such arbitrator, arbitrators, or umpire of the amount of the loss or damage if disputed shall be first obtained. " ( 26 ) THERE is no dispute that the plaintiff filed the suit without seeking arbitration as required by clause 18 of the policy. ( 27 ) SHRI V S Gunjal learned counsel for the plaintiff, contended that since defendants Nos. 1 and 2 repudiated the claim and disputed their liability under the policy, clause No 18 was not a bar for the plaintiff to approach the civil court for the recovery of damages. In support of that contention, he relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Vulcan Insurance Co Ltd v maharaj Singh, AIR1976 SC 287 , (1976 )1 SCC943 , [1976 ]2 SCR62. In para 12 of the judgment at page 290, the dicta of the Supreme Court is as follows (at page 116 of 46 Comp Cas): "it may well be that after the liability of the company is established in such a suit, for determination of the quantum of the loss or damage, reference to arbitration will have to be resorted to in accordance with clause 18. But the arbitration clause, restricted as it is by the use of the words 'if any difference arises as to the amount of any loss or damage', cannot take within its sweep a dispute as to that liability of the company when it refuses to pay and damage at all. " ( 28 ) EXHIBIT P-15 clearly evidences that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and defendants, that there should be a settlement of the loss on payment of Rs 5,000 for which a voucher was sent along with exhibit P-15. Therefore, it is not a case of repudiation of the claim or dispute of liability on the part of the insurer, but offering to pay less than the claim put forward as loss. The difference was as to the amount of loss. Therefore, the quantum of damages claimed by the plaintiff attracted arbitration under clause 18. Therefore, the view of the learned civil judge that the plaintiff was not entitled to maintain the suit cannot be held to be incorrect. However, we proceed to make the observation that the learned civil judge has committed an error of law in holding that the suit has been filed 12 months after the occurrence of the loss due to fire, contrary to clause No 19 of the policy and that, therefore, the suit was barred by time. We must state the correct position in law. Perhaps, the insurance forms were all printed long prior to the coming into force of the present Limitation Act on April 1, 1964. Under article 44 (b) of the schedule to the Limitation Act, a three-year period is provided for filing aa suit to recover damages sustained on account of any loss under an insurance policy. The time starts running against the plaintiff only on the date of the occurrence causing the loss or the date on which the claim is denied by the insurance company. Therefore, the view expressed by the learned civil judge is not sustainable in law, as well as on the ground that the defendants did not plead that nor was the issue raised for the trial court to come to a conclusion. ( 29 ) SUBJECT to the above observation, we affirm the finding on issue No 4. No other point was canvassed in support of the appeal. We find the appeal devoid of merit. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. ( 29 ) SUBJECT to the above observation, we affirm the finding on issue No 4. No other point was canvassed in support of the appeal. We find the appeal devoid of merit. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal. ( 30 ) IN the circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs in this appeal.