Judgment P.K.Deb, J. 1. This civil revision application has been filed by the above named petitioner challenging the order dated 28.5.1994 passed by Shri R.P. Sharma, Subordinate Judge-I, Ranchi, in Miscellaneous Case No. 30 of 1992, whereby and whereunder, the application filed by the petitioner under Sec. 33 of the Arbitration Act (the Act) was rejected. 2. The opposite party No. 1 contained a policy from the petitioner-Insurance Company regarding the electrical goods lying the shop of the opposite party covering burglary risk upto the limit of rupees one lac. A claim was made by the opposite party to the Insurance Company for payment as burglary was committed in its shop premises, the liability of the Insurance Company was not denied but regarding the quantum, there was a dispute and, as such, a surveyor was appointed and on the report of the surveyor, the Insurance Company assessed the loss at Rs. 46,031.00 and offered the same to the opposite party. 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the claim of the opposite party was ultimately settled at Rs. 46,031.00 and the insured-opposite party was asked to execute necessary document for enabling the petitioner to make payment. On being aggrieved, the insured-opposite party executed indemnity bond on 23.1.1992 and received the compensation amount in full and final settlement of the claim but after receipt of the same without objection the opposite party raised objection by giving lawyers notice to the effect that the quantum of compensation was not proper and the insured is entitled to get more amount towards compensation and by invoking the clause mentioned in the policy, appointed the arbitrator although the same was objected by the petitioner-Insurance Company. Then finding no other alternative, the petitioner made a petition under Sec. 33 of the Act challenging the appointment of the arbitrator and invoking of arbitration clause as per the contract. 4. The learned court below by the impugned order rejected the prayer relying on the decision of Damodar Volley Corporation V/s. K.K. Kar -- and disagreeing with the decision of the Apex Court in Damodar Engineering & Construction and Co. V/s. Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta -- . 5. 4. The learned court below by the impugned order rejected the prayer relying on the decision of Damodar Volley Corporation V/s. K.K. Kar -- and disagreeing with the decision of the Apex Court in Damodar Engineering & Construction and Co. V/s. Board of Trustees for the Port of Calcutta -- . 5. The only point that is required to be adjudicated is after the payment being made in full and final settlement, whether the insured has got any jurisdiction to invoke the arbitration clause as per the contract. As per the insurance policy, the arbitration clause runs as follows: 10. Arbitration If any difference shall arise as to the quantu.It be paid under this Policy (liability being otherwise admitted) such difference 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 parties within two calender months after having been required so to do in writing by the other party in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 1940 , as amended from time to time and for the time being in force. In case either party shall refuse or fail to appoint arbitrator within two calender months after receipt of notice in writing requiring an appointment, the other party shall be at liberty to appoint sole arbitrator and in 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. It is clearly agreed and understood that no difference or dispute shall be referable to arbitration as herein before provided if the Company has disputed or not accepted liability under or in respect of this policy. It is hereby expressly stipulated and declared that it shall be 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 shall be first obtained. It is hereby expressly stipulated and declared that it shall be 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 shall be first obtained. It is also hereby further expressly agreed and declared that if the Company shall dis-claim liability to the insured for any claim hereunder and such claim shall not within 12 calender months from the date of such disclaimer have been made the subject matter of a suit in a court of law then the claim shall for all purposes be deemed to have been abandoned and shall not thereafter be recoverable hereunder. 6. As per above, it is clear that the arbitration can be invoked only when there is difference as regards the quantum of payment. Now the question arises that liability of the Insurance Company is admitted and liability has been discharged after making payment to the insured which has again been accepted by the insured towards full and final settlement of the claim. It is not denied that indemnity bond was never executed by the insured. Reliance made by the court below in the case of Damodar Valley Corporation (Supra) has not been properly construed in its proper perspective in applying to the facts and circumstances of the case. In that case, the tenderer entered into a contract with the D.V.C. to supply coal but as he failed to do so in accordance with the terms of contract, the appellant unilaterally repudiated the contract and ultimately paid the respondents for supply of the coal. It was the case of the appellant that these payments including the return of the deposit amount finally settled the claims of the tender. The tenderer after receiving the payment claimed from the Damodar Valley Corporation the damages for repudiation of the contract. When the D.V.C. did not agree to, it served a notice for reference to arbitration. In that case, the fact of payment of full and final settlement to the satisfaction was disputed vis-a-vis whether the damages as claimed by the tenderer was within the scope of the settlement made on payment by the Corporation was required to be decided by the arbitrator. 7. In the present case, the question of repudiation of contract is not there. 7. In the present case, the question of repudiation of contract is not there. Here the whole thing is related to the payment of compensation as per insurance policy and the arbitration clause is clear and unambiguous to the effect that if there was any dispute regarding the quaptum of compensation, then and then only arbitration clause can be invoked. If in the present case, the insured, wouId have received payment of compensation with objection then it was definitely within his jurisdiction, to invoke the arbitration clause for further balance claim as per his initial claim of rupees one lac. After assessment, the claim was settled at Rs. 46,000.00 and odd and the same was paid towards the full and final settlement of the insured opposite party and in receiving the payment he executed indemnity bond towards the full and final satisfaction of the claim. After such payment, the whole contractual obligation has come to an end. There is no scope of any further adjudication for quantum of compensation when the same has already been settled and then accepted without objection from the side of the insured. I find that the petition under Sec. 33 of the Act filed by the insured has got much force. 8. In the result, this application is allowed. The impugned order is hereby set aside holding that arbitration clause did not remain available to the insured opposite party after closure of the claim on the insurance policy towards compensation of payment from the side of Insurance Company. No order as to costs.