JUDGMENT S.C. Mohapatra, J. - Defendant No. 2 is the appellant against a decree for payment of money. 2. Plaintiff is a statutory body instituted under the Food Corporation Act, 1964. Defendant No. 1 was a purchaser-cum-milling agent of the plaintiff for the year 1968-69 in respect of which there was a written agreement dated 11.3.1969. On the basis of policy of insurance, defendant No. 2 agreed to cover the risk in respect of loss sustained by plaintiff under the agreement with defendant No. 1 as per the terms in the policy. Defendant No. 1 had taken advance of Rs. 5,64,000/- on different dates showing procurement of paddy but has delivered stocks on different dates in respect of Rs. 5,29,246.69 paise and has failed to deliver 263 Quintals 30 Kilograms of rice and 113 Quintals 70 Kilograms of paddy. Therefore, defendant No. 1 was liable to the extent of Rs. 34,753.31 paise. Added to it, defendant No. 1 was liable for the penalty and purchase tax. Relying upon terms of the policy, plaintiff issued notice to defendant No. 2 to pay the amount. Defendant No. 2 paid only Rs. 17,000/- on 16.12.1970. Hence, suit was filed claiming Rs. 76,858.53 paise. 3. Insurer merged with appellant under the provision of the General Insurance Business (Nationalisation) Act, 1972. Defendant No. 2, the insurer denied its liability and claimed that the matter is to be settled by arbitration. 4. Trial Court decreed the suit in part against defendant No. 2 finding that there was an outstanding balance of Rs. 34,753.31 paise against defendant No. 1 from the amount advanced to it. Defendant No. 2 admitted liability of this amount and paid Rs. 17,000/-. Defendant No. 2 is liable to pay Rs. 46,677/- which is the penalty on defendant No. 1 for the loss sustained on account of deliberate and fraudulent act of defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 is liable to pay interest at 6 per cent pendente lite and future. Defendant No. 2 is aggrieved by this decree. 5. There is no dispute that liability of defendant No. 2 flows from the terms of the three policies (Ext. 2 series). Defendant No. 2 is aggrieved by this decree. 5. There is no dispute that liability of defendant No. 2 flows from the terms of the three policies (Ext. 2 series). Relevant portion of terms of the policy is extracted hereunder : "Now it is hereby agreed that if at any time during the period stated in the Schedule hereto or during any period for which the "INSURER" may accept payment for RENEWAL of this Policy, the "INSURED" shall sustain any loss caused by any act of fraud, embezzlement, dishonesty or default committed by the said "AGENT" in respect of stocks of paddy rice or cash received by or entrusted to the said "AGENT" by the "INSURED" or in such capacity under the AGREEMENT between the "INSURED" and the "AGENT" or if the "INSURED" shall sustain any loss caused by fraudulent concursion of such stocks or cash received by or entrusted to the said "AGENT" in such capacity or loss from deliberate failure on the part of the said "AGENT" to produce or deliver such stocks or cash to the authorised Officers or to duly authorised persons of the "INSURED" as and when required under terms of the AGREEMENT referred to here-above or any loss caused by any deliberate and fraudulent substitution by the said "AGENT" of good varieties or stock by damaged or inferior varieties, the "INSURER" shall make good and reimburse to the "INSURED" on the mitter adducing satisfactory evidence as per terms and conditions of this Policy, the full value of such loss (but in no case the amount of Guarantee - (Sum Assured) as stated in the SCHEDULE hereto) provided that such loss be discovered within the currency of this Policy or within six months after expiry thereof." 6. Term extracted above is wide enough to cover the advance outstanding against defendant No. 1. Therefore, trial court is correct in finding liability of defendant No. 2 in respect of Rs. 34,753.31 paise. Defendant No. 2 having paid Rs. 17,000/-, it is liable to pay the balance amount in this respect. 7. As regards the liability of Rs. 46,677/-, it is the amount of loss sustained by the plaintiff. Insurer (defendant No. 2) is to make good and reimburse the same to the insured (plaintiff), "the latter adducing satisfactory evidence as per terms and conditions of the policy, the full value of such loss .....". 7. As regards the liability of Rs. 46,677/-, it is the amount of loss sustained by the plaintiff. Insurer (defendant No. 2) is to make good and reimburse the same to the insured (plaintiff), "the latter adducing satisfactory evidence as per terms and conditions of the policy, the full value of such loss .....". Admittedly, plaintiff only issued notice to defendant No. 2 on 9.1.1970 (Ext. 53). Said notice only contained the accounts of total claim on different heads. No satisfactory evidence in support of the claim was adduced by plaintiff before defendant No. 2. It is true that defendant No. 2 in its letter dated 18.1.1971 (Ext. 51) has not taken the same as a ground not to be liable. However, I am inclined to hold that defendant No. 2 ought to get a chance to examine the accounts of the plaintiff to find out the correctness of the claim. Plaintiff is a statutory body. Defendant No. 2 is a nationalised organisation. There is a written clause for arbitration in the policy as reflected in Clause 11 of the general conditions to the policy which reads as follows : "11. If any dispute shall arise as to whether the "INSURER" is liable under this Policy for any loss or as to extent of its liability, the matter shall be referred to the Arbitrator of the "INSURED" and in case of any difference in regard to the award of the Arbitrator, the matter shall be referred to appropriate Courts in CUTTACK CITY, where the "INSURER" has its Registered Office, to the exclusion of other Court." As a statutory body, plaintiff ought not to have rushed to Court without referring the matter to arbitration as provided in the policy. I may observe that in cases of disputes between two governments or two departments of the same government or even two organisations which the 'authorities' under Article 12 of the Constitution like the plaintiff and defendant No. 2, such disputes are to be settled by committee constituted or by arbitrator where there is a written agreement to that effect. I may observe that in cases of disputes between two governments or two departments of the same government or even two organisations which the 'authorities' under Article 12 of the Constitution like the plaintiff and defendant No. 2, such disputes are to be settled by committee constituted or by arbitrator where there is a written agreement to that effect. In this case, plaintiff not having adduced evidence before defendant No. 2 as per term in the policy and there being written agreement for arbitration, it is profitable for both the parties if defendant No. 2 examines the records, documents and registers of the plaintiff and satisfies itself about the amount in respect of which it is liable since there can be no dispute that defendant No. 2 is liable in respect of the loss as claimed by plaintiff. Accordingly, on the facts and in the circumstances, without passing a decree that plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 46,677/-, it is desirable that plaintiff and defendant No. 2 should sit across the table and verify the materials and come to conclusion in respect of the amount payable by defendant No. 2. Neither plaintiff nor defendant No. 2 has living mind being corporate bodies. They act through individuals. In the circumstance, the transaction having related to Balasore area, District Manager, Food Corporation of India, is in custody of all materials apart from those produced in Court. An officer authorised by defendant No. 2 is to approach the District Manager who shall fix time and place for such discussion and scrutiny of materials. On such scrutiny, the amount settled by the District Manager shall be the amount which shall be paid by defendant No. 2 to the plaintiff. 8. Mr. Y.S.N. Murty has brought to my notice that the appeal is of the year 1977 in respect of a claim of 1968-69. More than 20 years after the matter is directed to be re-opened when there would be change of some materials not being available, or some officers not being available to explain the situation. I have no doubt that officers of defendant No. 2 would be reasonable to take note of the same. More than 20 years after the matter is directed to be re-opened when there would be change of some materials not being available, or some officers not being available to explain the situation. I have no doubt that officers of defendant No. 2 would be reasonable to take note of the same. If the discussion settled at the table does not tally with the figure as reflected in Schedule 'C' of the plaint based on documents, final settlement shall be determined by the Senior Regional Manager of plaintiff posted in Orissa which shall be final. 9. This exercise shall be completed within six months from today since 20 years have passed. Defendant No. 2 shall approach the District Manager, Food Corporation of India at Balasore who shall fix a date from which the various accounts required by defendant No. 2 shall be scrutinised. 10. Mr. P. Roy, learned Counsel for the appellant, has brought to my notice a term in the policy relating to liability of insurer for interest where it is stipulated that no claim payable under the policy shall carry interest. Condition No. 2 reads as follows : "2. All sums payable under the Policy shall be payable at the "INSURER'S" registered office at Cuttack and no claim payable under this Policy shall carry interest and the "INSURER" shall cease to be liable for any such sums unless claimed within one year after the same became due." 11. In view of the status of defendant No. 2 and plaintiff both being ultimately controller by Central Government, I am not inclined to grant any interest. 12. In conclusion, plaintiff shall be entitled to the advance amount adjusting Rs. 17,000/- already paid. In case the said amount is not paid within two months from today, it shall carry commercial rate of interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the suit till payment. 13. As regards Rs. 46,677.06 paise, defendant No. 2 shall approach the District Manager within one month from today and on a date fixed by the District Manager, intimated to defendant No. 2, documents shall be made available to defendant No. 2 for scrutiny and settlement of the amount across the table. 13. As regards Rs. 46,677.06 paise, defendant No. 2 shall approach the District Manager within one month from today and on a date fixed by the District Manager, intimated to defendant No. 2, documents shall be made available to defendant No. 2 for scrutiny and settlement of the amount across the table. If no settlement is possible to be arrived yet, matter shall be referred to Senior Regional Manager of the plaintiff at Bhubaneshwar in Orissa for final decision which shall be completed within six months from today. In case the amount of Rs. 17,000/- is paid within the time stipulated, defendant No. 2 shall not pay any interest on the said amount. If it is not paid, it shall carry interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum from the date suit till the date of recovery. 14. In result, appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Appeal allowed. *-*-*-*-*