JUDGMENT N. K. Sinha, J 1. Heard Mr. M. M. Banerjee learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. Satish Bakshi learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The appellant filed a suit under Section 20 read with Section 8 of the Indian Arbitration Act for reference of their claim for Arbitration. The said suit being T(A) S.N. 174/93 was dismissed by the learned Subordinate Judge by his judgment and order dated 23rd November 1995. The appellant has preferred an appeal against the said judgment and order. 3. The appellant-plaintiff claims to be the sole proprietor of his shop 'Time Vision' situated at Nawagarh, Kusum Market within Baghmare police station of Dhanbad District. The appellant in order to indemnify his shop got the entire stock including the furnitures, etc. insured with the new Indian Assurance Company (hereinafter the 'Company') vide policy No. 48/2101 for a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- A certificate of insurance was issued which was valid for the the period 2-7-1992 to 1-7-1993. The case of the appellant further is that on the night of 29-10-1992 his ship caught fire and the entire shop including the stock in trade and furnitures were burnt to ashes. The appellant claimed to have sustained a loss of Rs. 2,54,000/-. When the appellant pressed his claim before the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company, it is claimed, arbitrarily settled the claim for Rs. 23,759/- after getting an assessment made on the basis of a value appointed for the purpose. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the insurance policy that was issued by the Insurance Company to the appellant contained an Arbitration Clause vide Clause 10. The said clause provided for appointment of an Arbitrator in case of any difference or dispute between the parties with regard to the claim made. Learned counsel for the respondents did not dispute the fact that the Insurance Company had issued an insurance policy which contained an Arbitration Clause. It is also not in dispute that in case of any difference or dispute with regard to the parties namely the policy holder and the Insurance Company, the dispute and difference could be referred to an Arbitrator if jointly agreed to by the parties or separate Arbitrators who shall appoint and Umpire and decide the dispute or difference. 5. It is also not in dispute that in case of any difference or dispute with regard to the parties namely the policy holder and the Insurance Company, the dispute and difference could be referred to an Arbitrator if jointly agreed to by the parties or separate Arbitrators who shall appoint and Umpire and decide the dispute or difference. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the suit had been rightly dismissed for there was no dispute or differenece between the parties on account of the claim made by the appellant as the same had been finally settled for a sum of Rs. 23,759/-. That the appellant had received Rs. 23,759/- from the Insurance Company is not denied. What is denied is that the said amount had been received in complete satisfaction of the claim. Learned counsel for the respondents referred to Annexures-B, C and D filed along with the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the New India Assurance Company-respondent No. 1. Annexure-B is a copy of letter dated 30-7-1993 addressed to the Branch Manager, M/s. Allahabad Bank. The letter is to the effect that the claim in question in respect of the appellant has been settled for Rs. 23,759/-. While enclosing a receipt voucher for the same the Insurance Company had requested the Bank authority to submit the same duly signed by him to enable the Insurance Company to release the payment. The Manager of the Allahabad Bank by his letter dated 12-8-1993 copy of which is Annexure C referred to the aforesaid letter of the Insurance Company and sent the receipt voucher after necessary endorsement for the needful. It appears that on the receipt of the letter Annexure-C the Insurance Company released the payment of a sum of Rs. 23,759/- and the same was accepted by the Bank in full settlement of all claims upon the said Company under the policy. It was stated at the Bar that the premium at the insurance policy was being paid by the Allahabad Bank on behalf of the appellant and the acceptance of the aforesaid amount of claim in full settlement in respect of the accident that occurred on the right of 29-10-1992 completely discharged the Insurance Company from any liability. It was stated at the Bar that the premium at the insurance policy was being paid by the Allahabad Bank on behalf of the appellant and the acceptance of the aforesaid amount of claim in full settlement in respect of the accident that occurred on the right of 29-10-1992 completely discharged the Insurance Company from any liability. In other words after the aforesaid amount had been accepted in full settlement of all claims upon the Insurance Company on behalf of the appellant there was no dispute or difference in between the insured namely the appellant and the Insurance Company which could be referred to Arbitration under the Arbitration clause. 6. In view of what has been stated above there was no question of the learned Subordinate Judge allowing the prayer of the appellant to refer the matter to the Arbitrator for all dispute and difference that may have existed between the claimant in question and the Insurance Company which had already come to an end when there was acceptance of the amount of Rs. 23,759/- by the appellant in full settlement of all claims upon the Company with regard to the accident in question. 7. The appeal is thus found without merit and is dismissed accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.