JUDGMENT :- 1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said “Arbitration Act”), the petitioners have impugned the arbitral award dated 20th March, 2012 rendered by the learned arbitrator allowing some of the claims made by the respondents. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: 2. The petitioners were original respondents in the arbitration proceedings, whereas the respondents herein were the original claimants. The respondents have been carrying on business of manufacture of apparels and readymade garments at its units at Mumbai and Daman. The respondents had obtained from the petitioners Unit No.260201, Mumbai two policies viz. (1) Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy No.260201/11/05/3100000004 insuring the Machinery, Electric Installations, Showroom, A.C., Computers, Printers, Scanners, Fax Xerox, Packing Materials lying at Lower Parel, Kurla and Daman for an amount of Rs.2,62,70,000/- and (2) Floater Policy No.260201/11/05/3100000005 insuring the stock of fabrics and readymade garments of all kinds' finished, semi finished and unfinished goods, raw materials pertaining to the respondents business lying at three locations viz. Lower Parel, Kurla and Daman for a sum of Rs.2,73,30,000/-. Both the policies were effective from 7th April, 2005 to midnight of 6th April, 2006. 3. On 26th July, 2006, due to heavy rains and floods at Mumbai, the entire premises of the respondents was immersed in water. By a letter dated 27th July, 2005, the respondents informed the petitioners that there was a damage to the machineries and raw-materials in their factory situated at Kurla on account of flooding due to heavy rains in Mumbai on 26th July, 2005 and requested the petitioners to depute the surveyor to survey the damage. The petitioners appointed their surveyor M/s. Rashmi Desai & Associates to assess the loss at the factory premises of the respondents at Kurla. On 28th July, 2005, the said surveyor visited the factory premises of the respondents, however, could not carry out a detailed survey on that day as the rain water had accumulated in the insured premises, which was required to be removed. On 28th July, 2005, the said surveyor visited the factory premises of the respondents, however, could not carry out a detailed survey on that day as the rain water had accumulated in the insured premises, which was required to be removed. It is the case of the respondents that the surveyor accordingly instructed the respondents to segregate the damaged material from the sound material and to prepare a complete detailed list of damaged sock and other properties and to keep all the relevant documents pertaining to loss ready and on completion of the same to inform the said surveyor by following the procedure as stated in the policies. 4. By a letter dated 4th August, 2005, the respondents informed the petitioners that they were unable to quantify the loss on account of power supply being not restored and that no sooner all the relevant documents would be ready, the same would be handed over to the surveyor. 5. It is the case of the respondents that as the garments were fully soaked in water, foul smell emitted making the factory unhealthy and unhygienic. The insurance company issued a general advisory that due to inability to deal with such large number of claims that salvage above Rs.5.00lakhs be disposed of following standard procedure prescribed by all insurers for disposal of affected stocks. The respondents accordingly issued an advertisement in Times of India and Loksatta on 6th August, 2005 inviting bids for sale of the damaged goods. In response to the said advertisement, 19 bidders submitted their quotations. It is the case of the respondents that on 8th August, 2005, the respondents sold the goods to the highest bidder for Rs.25,91,480/- in the said auction conducted on 8th August, 2005. The respondents informed the petitioners about the auction sale. 6. On 8th August, 2005, the petitioners alleged that the respondents had committed a breach of clause 7 of the policies by sale of goods and by not submitting a list of damaged properties and not making claims within fifteen days of the alleged loss suffered by the respondents. On 23rd September, 2005, the respondents lodged a claim with the petitioners at the estimated loss of Rs.2,63,68,667/- and deducted a sum of Rs.25,61,480/- as salvage amount, Rs.2,60,500/- as machinery buyback amount and made the net claim of Rs.2,35,16,687/-. 7. On 23rd September, 2005, the respondents lodged a claim with the petitioners at the estimated loss of Rs.2,63,68,667/- and deducted a sum of Rs.25,61,480/- as salvage amount, Rs.2,60,500/- as machinery buyback amount and made the net claim of Rs.2,35,16,687/-. 7. On 16th November, 2005, the respondents requested the petitioners to release the claim amount pointing out that the financial position of the respondents was disturbed and the respondents required the finance to complete the export orders. It is the case of the respondents that on 23rd November, 2005, the respondents recorded the response to all the queries raised by the surveyor and delivered all the documents sought by the surveyor appointed by the petitioners. 8. It is the case of the petitioners that the partner of the respondents Mr. Anil Kumar Jain was in regular touch with the surveyor and was holding discussions with him and providing documents for verification as called by the surveyor. On verification, the said surveyor assessed the net loss of Rs.1,90,08,775/- and the said working was shown to the said partner of the respondents. It is the case of the petitioners that after being satisfied with the assessment of the net loss carried out by the surveyor, the respondents by their letter dated 22nd December, 2005 informed the petitioners that the respondents were agreeable to accept the net loss of Rs.1,90,08,775/- worked out by the surveyor and that they would accept the decision of the petitioners as final. It is however, the case of the respondents that the respondents had addressed the said letter dated 22nd December, 2005 under instructions of the surveyor who had forced the respondents to give written consent of the willingness to accept the assessment of Rs.1.90crores by writing a letter. 9. it is the case of the petitioners that since the respondents were agreeable to accept the assessment of net loss of Rs.1,90,08,775/- as worked out by the surveyors, on 23rd December, 2005 the said surveyor submitted their final report No.1505/0524 to the regional office of the petitioners assessing the net loss of Rs.1,90,08,775/- towards the claim of the respondents. In the said surveyor's report, the surveyor had assessed the net loss after taking into consideration the salvage value of the damaged goods at Rs.50.00lakhs and excess at 5%. In the said surveyor's report, the surveyor had assessed the net loss after taking into consideration the salvage value of the damaged goods at Rs.50.00lakhs and excess at 5%. The surveyors recommended to the petitioners to take a lenient view and not to reject and forfeit the claim of the respondents as a result of breach of warranty/condition of the policy by strict enforcement of the legal position which would cause hardship to the respondents and as per the fire insurance claim IC – 56 guidelines, recommended to treat the claim as Non- Standard and to process the claim at 75% of the assessed loss according to said guidelines. 10. It is the case of the petitioners that in view of the said letter addressed by the respondents and in view of the discussions held between the petitioners, the surveyor and the partner of the respondents, the surveyor had jointly worked out with the respondents a net amount of Rs.1,27,08,367/- to be paid in respect of policy No.260201/11/05/3100000005 and net sum of Rs.17,05,650/- in respect of policy No.260201/11/05/3100000004, totaling to Rs.1,44,14,017/- subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It is the case of the petitioners that the said amount was arrived at after several meetings between the petitioners, surveyor and the said Anil Kumar Jain, one of the partners of the respondents, who was convinced with the correctness of the final amount offered on the Non-Standard basis due to the breach of the policy conditions. 11. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents accordingly submitted an affidavit dated 16th October, 2006 agreeing to accept a sum of Rs.1,44,14,017/- less difference premium in full and final settlement from the petitioners and agreed not to make any claim or demand for any other amount or for difference any time in future. The petitioners made a draft of the said affidavit available to the respondents. It is case of the petitioners that the said draft of the said affidavit was made available to the respondents by the petitioners pursuant to the request made by Mr. Sameer Pathan of the respondents. The petitioners thereafter issued a cheque bearing No.396591 dated 20th October, 2006 of Rs.1,44,14,017/- in favour of the respondents. It is case of the petitioners that the said draft of the said affidavit was made available to the respondents by the petitioners pursuant to the request made by Mr. Sameer Pathan of the respondents. The petitioners thereafter issued a cheque bearing No.396591 dated 20th October, 2006 of Rs.1,44,14,017/- in favour of the respondents. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents received the said cheque in full and final settlement of their claim under both the policies and also executed two vouchers accepting the said payment in full and final settlement and absolving the petitioners from all the liabilities present or future arising directly or indirectly out of the said loss or damage under both the policies. 12. The respondents by their letter dated 30th October, 2006 to the petitioners alleged that they were forced to accept a sum of Rs.1,72,00,000/- as settlement amount because the settlement was getting delayed and they were facing acute financial crises. It was further alleged by the respondents that unfair settlement was on account of major difference in the salvage value actually realized and amount of Rs.50.00lakhs towards the salvage as assessed by the surveyor and requested the petitioners to pay the balance claim. 13. It is the case of the respondents that on 7th November, 2006, the petitioners promised the respondents during the telephonic conversation that they would seek advice from their higher authorities regarding the claim amount and would give reply to the letter dated 30th October, 2006. 14. On 4th December, 2006, the respondents sent a reminder to the petitioners to consider their claim. On 2nd February, 2007 the petitioners informed the respondents that their letter dated 30th October, 2006 was misplaced by the petitioners. On 9th February, 2007, the respondents forwarded a copy of the earlier letter to the petitioners and requested the petitioners to reconsider the claim amount. 15. On 9th February, 2007, the respondents by their advocate's letter invoked arbitration clause no.13 of the policies demanding the reference of the quantum dispute to arbitration. The respondents suggested the name of a retired Judge of this Court as the sole arbitrator. The respondents thereafter sent a reminder to the petitioner to pay the balance amount on 6th March, 2007. 16. The respondents thereafter filed Arbitration Petition No.196 of 2007 under section 11 of the said Arbitration act in this Court. The respondents suggested the name of a retired Judge of this Court as the sole arbitrator. The respondents thereafter sent a reminder to the petitioner to pay the balance amount on 6th March, 2007. 16. The respondents thereafter filed Arbitration Petition No.196 of 2007 under section 11 of the said Arbitration act in this Court. By an order dated 5th February, 2010, the learned designate Judge of the Chief Justice appointed a retired Judge of this Court as the sole arbitrator. Pursuant to the directions issued by the learned arbitrator, the respondents filed the statement of claim on 14th June, 2010, claiming an amount of Rs.1,78,80,003/- comprising of Rs.91,02,670/- being the difference of the amount claimed by the respondents and paid by the petitioners, Rs.38,61,891/- being interest at 18% p.a. on Rs.2,35,16,687/- for a period 23rd December, 2005 till 20th October, 2006 at Rs.49,15,442/- being the interest at 18% p.a. on Rs.91,02,670/- for a period 21st October, 2006 till filing of the proceedings. The petitioners filed their statement of defence of 23rd August, 2010 raising various pleas, including a plea that the dispute was not arbitrable as per clause 13 of the insurance policy. The parties filed further pleadings before the learned arbitrator. On 3rd December, 2010, the learned arbitrator finalized the points for determination. On 27th December, 2010, the respondents filed affidavit of evidence of their partner Anil Kumar Jain in lieu of examination in chief along with list of documents. The said witness was cross-examined on behalf of the petitioners on various dates. The petitioners filed affidavit of their two witnesses in lieu of examination in chief who were cross-examined on behalf of the respondents on various dates. 17. On 20th March, 2012, the learned arbitrator made an award directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.91,02,670/- together with interest thereon at 12% p.a. from 23rd December, 2005 till 20th October, 2006 on Rs.1,44,14,017/-, interest at the rate of 18% on Rs.91,02,670/- from the date of the award till payment and/or realization whichever is earlier and Rs.16,04,201/- as costs of arbitration. The said arbitral award has been impugned in this petition by the petitioners. 18. The said arbitral award has been impugned in this petition by the petitioners. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the respondents had accepted the payment of Rs.1,44,14,017/- plus price for sale of salvage sold in full and final settlement and having not raised any dispute prior to acceptance of the payment, there were no disputes or differences as to the quantum to be paid prior to the acceptance of the payment and thus under clause 13 of the policies, the dispute raised by the respondents was not arbitrable. It is submitted that the interpretation of the learned arbitrator that since there existed vast difference between the quantum claimed by the respondents and the payment made by the petitioners, the dispute was arbitrable is contrary to clause 13 of the policies and such interpretation is untenable. 19. It is submitted by the learned counsel that since the claim was not lodged by the respondents within fifteen days on the happening of any loss or damage with the petitioners by the respondents, the respondents were precluded from making any such claim against the petitioners. There was a prohibition under clause 6 of the policies from making any such claim after fifteen days. The learned arbitrator has acted contrary to clause 6 of the policies and has allowed the prohibited claims against the petitioners. 20. It is submitted by the learned counsel that under clause 7(d) of the policies, right to sell the salvage was only with the petitioners and not with the respondents, which right could be exercised by the petitioners at any time until a notice in writing was given by the respondents that they would make no claim under the policies. It is submitted that in this case, the respondents had not informed the petitioners that the respondents would not make any claim in respect of salvage. The learned counsel submits that since the claims made by the respondents were pending consideration before the petitioners, the disposal of the salvage was always within the powers of the petitioners and not the respondents. Since the respondents had unilaterally sold the salvage without any intimation to the petitioners depriving the petitioners of selling such salvage, the respondents were not entitled to any benefits under the policies in question. He submits that the sale of salvage was ex-facie in breach of clause 7 of the policies. Since the respondents had unilaterally sold the salvage without any intimation to the petitioners depriving the petitioners of selling such salvage, the respondents were not entitled to any benefits under the policies in question. He submits that the sale of salvage was ex-facie in breach of clause 7 of the policies. The learned arbitrator has awarded the claims in favour of the respondents in breach of clause 7 of the policies. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that till 4th August, 2005, admittedly the survey could not be done even according to the respondents in view of the electricity not having been restored. On 6th August, 2005, the respondents had issued an advertisement in two newspapers for sale of salvage without any notice to the petitioners. The respondents also did not give any opportunity to the petitioners to survey the status of such salvage and sold the salvage on 8th August, 2005 in breach of the policies. 22. Learned counsel submits that in the cross-examination of the witness examined by the respondents, the respondents had accepted the valuation report of the surveyor. The respondents had for about ten to twelve months did not make any allegations of duress and coercion in filing affidavit and issuing a receipt thereby accepting the amounts offered by the petitioners and agreeing not to make any claim whatsoever in future. The respondents also did not allege at any point of time prior to the receipt of cheque that the settlement between the parties was unfair or that the salvage calculated by the surveyor at Rs.50.00lakhs was incorrect. The allegations of duress came to be made only when a notice invoking the arbitration agreement issued by about three months from the date of the receipt of the payment. 23. Learned counsel invited my attention to the various parts of the cross-examination of the witness examined by the respondents and would submit that there was no economic duress as alleged by the respondents in the statement of claim. The respondents themselves had got the affidavit typed, stamped and notarized and only thereafter had sent the said affidavit to the petitioners for payment. Learned counsel submits that the witness examined by the respondents had admitted in cross-examination that there were several orders received by the respondents for supply of various materials and that they had received the financial assistance from the bank. Learned counsel submits that the witness examined by the respondents had admitted in cross-examination that there were several orders received by the respondents for supply of various materials and that they had received the financial assistance from the bank. It is submitted that the allegation of the respondents that there was an economic duress which compelled the respondents to sign such affidavit acknowledging the payment in full and final settlement and that the respondents would not make any claim in future was false and incorrect. 24. It is submitted by the learned counsel that since the respondents had denied the contents of the surveyor's report, the respondents could not have been permitted to rely upon any part of the survey report and thus were required to prove their claim independently by leading appropriate evidence before the learned arbitrator. The learned arbitrator could not have allowed the respondents to rely upon any part of the surveyor's report in support of their claim. Since there was no appropriate evidence led by the respondents to prove their claim independently, the award rendered by the learned arbitrator is based on no evidence. 25. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the following judgments in support of the plea that since the respondents had accepted the entire amount in full and final settlement of their claim and there was complete accord and satisfaction, the claims made by the respondents were not arbitrable and the learned arbitrator could not have decided the allegations of duress and coercion against the petitioners. 1) In the case of Chairman & Managing Director, NTPC Ltd. vs. Reshmi Constructions Builders & Contractors, AIR 2004, SCC 1330 (paragraphs 35 to 37) 2) In the case of Kapurchand Godha v. Mir Nawab Himayatalikhan Azamjah, AIR 1963 SC 250 = (1963) 2 SCR 168 (paragraphs 7 to 9) 3) An order dated 26th August, 2011 in Arbitration Petition No.400 of 2007, passed by the Bombay High Court : 4) In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Boghara Polyfab (P) Ltd., (2009) 1 SCC 267 (paragraph 25) : 5) Delhi High Court judgment dated 27th October, 2009 in Arbitration Petition No.144 of 2008, M/s.Polystone & Fragrance Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. National Insurance Company Limited. 26. Ltd. v. Boghara Polyfab (P) Ltd., (2009) 1 SCC 267 (paragraph 25) : 5) Delhi High Court judgment dated 27th October, 2009 in Arbitration Petition No.144 of 2008, M/s.Polystone & Fragrance Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. National Insurance Company Limited. 26. In support of the submission that the respondents cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the following judgments : 1) In the case of Pradeep Oil Corporation Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr., (2011) 5 SCC 270 (paragraphs 33, 34 and 35). 2) In the case of International Airport vs. Golden Chariot Airport, (2010) 10 SCC 422 (paragraphs 45 to 55) 3) In the case of R.N. Gosain A vs. Yashpal Dhir AIR 1993 SC 352 (paragraphs 9 and 10) 27. Learned counsel submits that the respondents could not have lodged any protest after acceptance of a cheque and thus no claim could be made by the respondents subsequently. In support of this submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Bhagwati Prasad Pawankumar vs. Union of India, AIR 2006 SCC 2331. 28. It is submitted by the learned counsel that since the respondents had committed various breaches of the policies, under the guidelines framed by the company, the petitioners were liable to release only up to 75% of the amount recommended by the surveyor in its report. In support of this submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Amalendu Sahoo vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 4 SCC 536 and in particular paragraphs 11, 12, 14 and 15. 29. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Nitin Khandelwal, (2008) 11 SCC 259 in support of the aforesaid submission and in particular paragraphs 13 to 16. 30. It is submitted by the learned counsel that even the surveyor's report though appointed by the petitioners was not binding on the petitioners. In support of this submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr. (2009) 8 SCC 507 = (2009) AIR SCW 6749. 31. In support of this submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr. (2009) 8 SCC 507 = (2009) AIR SCW 6749. 31. In support of his submission that if the insured disputes the surveyor's report, he is required to prove the claims made by him, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court delivered on 4th October, 2005 in Arbitration Petition No.90 of 2005 in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Jaisu Shipping Company Pvt. Ltd. and in particular paragraph 6 thereof. 32. The learned counsel submits that the learned arbitrator has accepted the files containing various disputed documents produced by the respondents. The learned arbitrator has allowed huge claim of the respondents without any evidence. 33. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the learned arbitrator could not have awarded interest on damages and that too at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the surveyor's report but could have awarded interest, if any, only from the date of award till payment and not for a period prior to the date of the award. It is submitted that awarding of interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of award is also exorbitant and shall be set aside. 34. Lastly, it is submitted that the award of the arbitration cost of Rs.16,04,201/- is also contrary to law and in conflict with the public policy. On the issue of interest raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Nipha Exports (P) Ltd., (2006) 8 SCC 156 and in particular paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 12. 35. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the commentary of E.R. Hardy Ivamy, Professor in Law in University of London on “Fire and Motor Insurance”, and in particular on the topic “Salvage of the Property”, rights and duties of the insured and insurers. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the commentary by M.B. Gopal and Raghawan on the law and practice of fire insurance. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS: 36. Mr. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the commentary by M.B. Gopal and Raghawan on the law and practice of fire insurance. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS: 36. Mr. Kapadia, learned counsel for the respondents submits that though the respondents have made claims after 15 days of the loss having been suffered in view of the flood, it is not in dispute that the petitioners had entertained such claims made by the respondents and thus the petitioners have waived their rights if any under clause 6 of the policies and could not have been permitted to urge this submission before the learned arbitrator as well as in the present proceedings. Similarly in so far as alleged breach of clause 7 of the policy by the respondents is concerned, it is submitted that the petitioners have waived their rights if any, under clause 7 in view of the petitioners having made payment of 75% of the recommended amount to the respondents. 37. Insofar as the issue about arbitrability of the claims in view of clause 13 of the policies is concerned, learned counsel submits that since there was a duress on the part of the petitioners upon the respondents and the consent of the respondents was obtained under such duress by the petitioners which was established, the petitioners having paid lessor amount than what was due and payable by the petitioners to the respondents, quantity dispute existed and thus the claims made by the respondents were arbitrable and were not contrary to clause 13 of the policies. Learned counsel placed reliance on the order passed by the then learned Acting Chief Justice in Arbitration Application No.169 of 2007 filed by the respondents herein under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the petitioners herein. It is submitted that the plea now raised in this proceeding was also raised by the petitioners in the said proceedings filed under section 11 of the Arbitration Act. It is submitted that the plea now raised in this proceeding was also raised by the petitioners in the said proceedings filed under section 11 of the Arbitration Act. By the said order dated 9th February, 2010 passed by the then Acting Chief Justice holding that if the Chief Justice or his designate is satisfied prima facie that the discharge voucher was not issued voluntarily and the claimant was under some compulsion or coercion, and that the matter deserved detailed consideration, he may instead of deciding the issue himself, refer the matter to the arbitral tribunal with a specific directions that the said question should be decided in the first instance. It is held that the respondents herein had made out a prima-facie case which required adjudication. In the said order, the learned Acting Chief Justice followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M/s. Boghara Ployfab Pvt. Ltd. and appointed former judge of this court as an arbitrator. Relying upon the said order passed in the said Arbitration Application No.169 of 2007, learned counsel submits that the issue of arbitrability thus cannot be raised by the petitioners in these proceedings or could not have been raised even before the learned arbitrator. 38. Learned counsel invited my attention to the correspondence exchanged between the parties which were forming part of the record before the learned arbitrator and also some part of the oral evidence. In so far as submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents could not have sold the salvage without completion of the surveyor's visit report is concerned, it is submitted that though the respondents had tried to contact the surveyor appointed by the petitioners, the surveyor being very busy in view of large number of claims made by several insured parties having affected due to flood, the surveyor was not able to visit each and every premises for the purpose of survey. With a view to mitigate further loss and in view of the problems of hygenity and odor smell and lack of space and since the respondents were to restart the business, the respondents were forced to sell the salvage without waiting for the visit of the surveyor. He submits that the surveyor was very busy and even otherwise unable to visit the premises of the respondents for the purpose of survey immediately. 39. He submits that the surveyor was very busy and even otherwise unable to visit the premises of the respondents for the purpose of survey immediately. 39. Learned counsel submits that the respondents had produced all the relevant documents before the surveyor, including the invoices issued by the respondents, the documents relating to the tender invited by the respondents and the details of the payment received from the successful bidder including the relevant bank statements. He submits that a sum of Rs.25.00lakhs received from the sale of salvage was adjusted against the total claim of Rs.2.63crores recoverable by the respondents from the petitioners. The surveyor appointed by the petitioners also agreed in the survey report that there was no breach committed by the respondents in selling the salvage in the circumstances referred to in the said report. The surveyor had scrutinized the documents produced by the respondents however without any basis recommended the salvage value at Rs.50.00lakhs instead of Rs.25.00lakhs. He submits that though the surveyor was examined as one of the witness by the petitioners, the surveyor could not prove as to how the said sum of Rs.50lacs recommended to be the value of salvage by the surveyor was the correct amount. 40. Insofar as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the surveyor's report once having been disputed by the respondents, no part of such surveyor's report could be relied upon by the respondents is concerned, he submits that even in the statement of claim as well as in the rejoinder the respondents had also relied upon part of the surveyor's report. It is submitted that the petitioners themselves had relied upon the said report and had acted upon the recommendation made by the surveyor and had examined the said surveyor as one of the witness to prove the correctness of the said report before the learned arbitrator which was forming part of the record, the petitioners cannot be allowed to raise any objection if the respondents also seek to rely upon any part of such surveyor's report which was forming part of the evidence before the learned arbitrator. Learned counsel distinguished the judgment of this court in case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Jaisu Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd., delivered on 4th October, 2005 in Arbitration Petition No.90 of 2005. 41. Learned counsel distinguished the judgment of this court in case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Jaisu Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd., delivered on 4th October, 2005 in Arbitration Petition No.90 of 2005. 41. It is submitted that the surveyor examined by the petitioners in their surveyor report had observed that the surveyor had already made enquiry from the purchaser of the salvage and observed that there was no breach on the part of the respondents in selling the salvage, the sale of salvage conducted by the respondents was justified. 42. Learned counsel relied upon part of the oral evidence led by the witness examined by the respondents and submits that even in the oral evidence led by the respondents, it was proved beyond the reasonable doubt that the surveyor was informed about the sale of salvage from time to time and was also called by the respondents to visit the factory of the respondents for the purpose of valuation of the loss suffered by the respondents and also to carry out the valuation of the salvage. The surveyor was however very busy and was unable to visit factory premises of the respondents. 43. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioners did not address any letter to the respondents alleging any breaches of any of the provisions of the policies. There was unexplained delay on the part of the petitioners to release the payment for 8 to 10 months from the date of the receipt of the surveyor's report though the respondents were running from pillar to post for getting the payment. It was case of the economic duress on the respondents committed by the petitioners. 44. Insofar as submission of the petitioners that the respondents having filed affidavit stating in clear term that the amount mentioned therein was in full and final settlement of all their claims and thus there was accord and satisfaction is concerned, learned counsel submits that the draft of such affidavit was sent by the petitioners to the respondents with a direction to file such affidavit strictly in accordance with such draft. The witness examined by the petitioners also admitted that such draft was given by the petitioners to the respondents for processing the claims of the respondents. The witness examined by the petitioners also admitted that such draft was given by the petitioners to the respondents for processing the claims of the respondents. The respondents thus had no alternate then to file such affidavit and receiving the amount at least to the extent the surveyor of the petitioners had recommended and then to make the claim for the balance amount. The respondents had proved their allegations of duress against the petitioners by leading oral as well as documentary evidence before the learned arbitrator. 45. The learned arbitrator has rendered findings in the impugned award which cannot be interfered with by this court under its limited scope under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners had not even submitted a copy of the surveyor report to the respondents for its perusal. Learned counsel submits that the demand of such affidavit and advance receipt from the respondents before even considering the claims of the respondents by the petitioners was not in normal circumstances and was contrary to the business principles. The petitioners in ordinary course ought to have made payment whatever was due and payable according to the petitioners and if according to the respondents any further sum was due and payable by the petitioners to the respondents, the respondents could have raised dispute for the balance amount. Learned counsel submits that the term economic duress is different from the commercial bargaining. He submits that for the purpose of proving the allegations that there was economic duress by the petitioners upon the respondents, it is not necessary for the respondents to prove that he had come on the street and therefore was forced and compelled to sign such affidavit and advance receipt. 46. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in view of the flood and the petitioners not having released amount due to the respondents, the respondents had already suffered monetary losses as well as production. Various orders placed by the customers of the respondents were cancelled. The respondents were without any compensation for about 15 months. There was a complete economic duress upon the respondents by the petitioners. It is submitted by the learned counsel that since the consent of the respondents was not a free consent, such consent is revocable at the option of the respondents whose consent was obtained by coercion and duress. The respondents were without any compensation for about 15 months. There was a complete economic duress upon the respondents by the petitioners. It is submitted by the learned counsel that since the consent of the respondents was not a free consent, such consent is revocable at the option of the respondents whose consent was obtained by coercion and duress. In support of this submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Dai-ichi Karkaria Private Limited Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Commission, reported in 1991 (4) Bom.C.R. 631 and in particular paragraph 36 thereof. 47. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Boghara Polyfab Private Limited, reported in (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 267. The Supreme Court has held that procedure for obtaining full and final discharge/settlement voucher/no-dues certificate from the private contractors by government departments/Public Sector Undertakings/Statutory Corporations acknowledging receipts of the sums less than the claim 'in full and final settlement' of all claims, as a condition precedent for releasing even admitted dues is unfair, irregular and illegal and requires to be deprecated. 48. Learned counsel fairly submits that in so far as the sum of Rs.11.77lakhs which is awarded by the learned arbitrator is concerned, under clause 1(a) of the policy, the Insurance Company is allowed to deduct such amount from the claim amount of the insured and thus the respondents have no objection if this amount of Rs.11.77lakhs awarded by the learned arbitrator only is set aside by this Court in this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Statement is accepted. 49. In so far as recommendation of the surveyor valuing salvage of Rs.50.00lakhs is concerned, the learned counsel invited my attention to the cross-examination of the surveyor who admitted that there was no evidence for any marketing enquiry conducted by the surveyor. There was no basis for reduction of rates. 50. In so far as the reduction of rates recommended by the surveyor is concerned, the learned counsel invited my attention to the findings rendered that such reduction was not proper and reduction was found invalid. There was no basis for reduction of rates. 50. In so far as the reduction of rates recommended by the surveyor is concerned, the learned counsel invited my attention to the findings rendered that such reduction was not proper and reduction was found invalid. In so far as the furniture’s, fixtures and fittings are concerned, it is submitted that since the respondents were permitted to buy-back those items, there is no question of any salvage as considered by the surveyor of Rs.27,579.95/-. 51. Learned counsel tendered a chart showing the amounts recommended by the surveyor in his report including the deduction considered in the said report in support of the submission that some of the recommendations made by the surveyor were illegal and not proved in the evidence led by the surveyor on behalf of the petitioners. 52. Learned counsel for the respondents then submits that the petitioners had accepted the survey report in to. The surveyor had also opined that there were no breaches committed by the respondents in so far as the sale of salvage is concerned. Since the petitioners had produced the survey report by examining the surveyor before the learned arbitrator, the respondents are also entitled to rely upon the evidence produced by the petitioners to the extent the surveyor having found the claim of the respondents as genuine. The respondents are also entitled to rely upon the evidence led by the petitioners in support of their claim. The surveyor had considered the documents of the respondents and had derived the rates but made deduction there from without any evidence. The surveyor had cross verified the documents produced by the respondents in the said survey report. 53. In so far as deduction of 25% of the amount recommended by the surveyor of the petitioners is concerned, it is submitted that the petitioners did not produce any guidelines before the learned arbitrator nor such guidelines were forming part of the policy. No material was produced before the learned arbitrator to indicate that such guidelines were applicable to the policy between the parties. The petitioners had failed to prove that such guidelines were forming part of the contract. Since even according to the surveyor, no breach was committed by the respondents, the petitioners could not have deducted any such amount. Such deduction was totally illegal. The petitioners had failed to prove that such guidelines were forming part of the contract. Since even according to the surveyor, no breach was committed by the respondents, the petitioners could not have deducted any such amount. Such deduction was totally illegal. The learned counsel invited my attention to the cross-examination of the surveyor who admitted in the cross-examination that the respondents had no choice but to submit an affidavit and no claim certificate. 54. Learned counsel submits that the learned arbitrator has rightly awarded interest in favour of the respondents and the same was not in violation of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policy-holders' Interest) Regulations, 2002 as canvassed by the petitioners. Since there was a gross delay on the part of the petitioners in releasing the amount as recommended by the surveyor within the time prescribed in the said regulations of 2002, the learned arbitrator was justified and was empowered to grant interest in view of the delay on the part of the petitioners in releasing the amount. Learned counsel invited my attention to Regulations 9 (1) and 9 (2) of the said Regulations in support of the aforesaid submission. Learned arbitrator has allowed interest @12% p.a. from 23rd December 2005 i.e. after expiry of three months from the date of the claim. 55. In the rejoinder, Mr. Vernekar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents cannot be allowed to pick up any part of the survey report. Since the respondents have disputed the survey report, the respondents were liable to prove the entire claim independently of the survey report in favour of the respondents. The petitioners had accepted the survey report in to and since there were breaches committed by the respondents, the petitioners were entitled to deduct 25% of the amount recommended by the surveyor. It is submitted that on 13th October 2006, the petitioners had made offer for settlement of the liability and on 20th October 2006, the petitioners had already released payment i.e. within 7 days from the date of such offer. The question of payment of any interest, therefore, did not arise. It is submitted that since the respondents were required to prove that deductions were illegal and were not proved, the learned arbitrator could not have granted such claim in favour of the respondents. REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS : Accord and satisfaction – arbitrable claims :- 56. The question of payment of any interest, therefore, did not arise. It is submitted that since the respondents were required to prove that deductions were illegal and were not proved, the learned arbitrator could not have granted such claim in favour of the respondents. REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS : Accord and satisfaction – arbitrable claims :- 56. The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged that the respondents had accepted payment of Rs.1,44,14,017/- plus the price for sale of the salvage sold in full and final settlement and have signed the affidavit and the payment receipt stating that no other amount was due and payable by the petitioners to the respondents and thus there was complete accord and satisfaction of the claims made by the respondents and thus the claims made by the respondents were not arbitrable. In support of this submission, learned counsel invited my attention to the various parts of the oral evidence led by the parties and also the correspondence entered into between the parties. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court and this Court in support of this submission. 57. Learned counsel for the respondents also on the other hand invited my attention to various parts of the oral evidence led by the parties and also the judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court and distinguished the judgments relied upon by the petitioners. It is submitted by learned counsel that after considering the entire documentary as well as oral evidence led by the parties, the learned arbitrator has rendered a finding of fact which finding is not perverse and thus cannot be interfered with by this Court under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. 58. Both the parties have examined the witnesses before the learned arbitrator. In the cross-examination of the witness examined by the respondents, the witness did not agree that in the month of December, 2005 the surveyor had informed the respondents that they had assessed the net loss at Rs.1,90,08,775/-. The witness deposed that the surveyor had informed the respondents to give an undertaking of Rs.1.90crores and told that the respondents would get the payment within one week. The witness deposed that the surveyor had informed the respondents to give an undertaking of Rs.1.90crores and told that the respondents would get the payment within one week. In reply to question No.86 when the witness was shown a letter dated 22nd December, 2005 addressed by the respondents to the petitioners, the witness deposed that the said letter was addressed by the respondents however, the format of the said letter was given by the surveyor. The witness denied the suggestion of the petitioners that the said letter dated 22nd December, 2005 was issued by the respondents because they had agreed and accepted the assessment of Rs.1,90,08,775/- made by the surveyor. The witness deposed that their claim was for Rs.2,63,68,667/-. The respondents were in financial trouble and therefore, were forced to agree as the surveyor had promised that the money would be paid within weeks time. The respondents had to complete further export orders and needed money. 59. The witness further deposed that he had told the surveyor that the claim of the respondents was Rs.2,63,68,667/- and the assessment loss was much more. The surveyor said that if the respondents refuse to accept the lower amount, then the respondents would not get even that much amount. When the witness was asked as to why the respondents did not withdraw their consent though the amount was not paid by the petitioners for over 10 to 12 months even after the alleged assurance was given by the surveyor, the witness deposed that the surveyor had informed him that if he did not agree to accept the lower amount, the claim of the respondents would be rejected. The witness of the respondents had personally visited the branch office of the petitioners and requested for some on account money but was told that they were still studying the surveyor's report and as soon as the same was over, money would be paid. The witness was also told that if the respondents withdrew their consent, the respondents would not get even that much amount of money. 60. The witness was also told that if the respondents withdrew their consent, the respondents would not get even that much amount of money. 60. The witness in the cross-examination further deposed that there were meetings between the petitioners, respondents and the surveyor in which the witness had informed the branch manager of the petitioners that the claim of the respondents was Rs.2,63,68,667/- and the surveyor had forced him to accept the lower amount of Rs.1,90,08,775/- and that he would get the cheque within week's time but still the respondents had not received the same. The witness however, could not produce any letter addressed by the respondents for a period of 10 months. JUDGMENT :- 1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said “Arbitration Act”), the petitioners have impugned the arbitral award dated 20th March, 2012 rendered by the learned arbitrator allowing some of the claims made by the respondents. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under: 2. The petitioners were original respondents in the arbitration proceedings, whereas the respondents herein were the original claimants. The respondents have been carrying on business of manufacture of apparels and readymade garments at its units at Mumbai and Daman. The respondents had obtained from the petitioners Unit No.260201, Mumbai two policies viz. (1) Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy No.260201/11/05/3100000004 insuring the Machinery, Electric Installations, Showroom, A.C., Computers, Printers, Scanners, Fax Xerox, Packing Materials lying at Lower Parel, Kurla and Daman for an amount of Rs.2,62,70,000/- and (2) Floater Policy No.260201/11/05/3100000005 insuring the stock of fabrics and readymade garments of all kinds' finished, semi finished and unfinished goods, raw materials pertaining to the respondents business lying at three locations viz. Lower Parel, Kurla and Daman for a sum of Rs.2,73,30,000/-. Both the policies were effective from 7th April, 2005 to midnight of 6th April, 2006. 3. On 26th July, 2006, due to heavy rains and floods at Mumbai, the entire premises of the respondents was immersed in water. By a letter dated 27th July, 2005, the respondents informed the petitioners that there was a damage to the machineries and raw-materials in their factory situated at Kurla on account of flooding due to heavy rains in Mumbai on 26th July, 2005 and requested the petitioners to depute the surveyor to survey the damage. By a letter dated 27th July, 2005, the respondents informed the petitioners that there was a damage to the machineries and raw-materials in their factory situated at Kurla on account of flooding due to heavy rains in Mumbai on 26th July, 2005 and requested the petitioners to depute the surveyor to survey the damage. The petitioners appointed their surveyor M/s. Rashmi Desai & Associates to assess the loss at the factory premises of the respondents at Kurla. On 28th July, 2005, the said surveyor visited the factory premises of the respondents, however, could not carry out a detailed survey on that day as the rain water had accumulated in the insured premises, which was required to be removed. It is the case of the respondents that the surveyor accordingly instructed the respondents to segregate the damaged material from the sound material and to prepare a complete detailed list of damaged sock and other properties and to keep all the relevant documents pertaining to loss ready and on completion of the same to inform the said surveyor by following the procedure as stated in the policies. 4. By a letter dated 4th August, 2005, the respondents informed the petitioners that they were unable to quantify the loss on account of power supply being not restored and that no sooner all the relevant documents would be ready, the same would be handed over to the surveyor. 5. It is the case of the respondents that as the garments were fully soaked in water, foul smell emitted making the factory unhealthy and unhygienic. The insurance company issued a general advisory that due to inability to deal with such large number of claims that salvage above Rs.5.00lakhs be disposed of following standard procedure prescribed by all insurers for disposal of affected stocks. The respondents accordingly issued an advertisement in Times of India and Loksatta on 6th August, 2005 inviting bids for sale of the damaged goods. In response to the said advertisement, 19 bidders submitted their quotations. It is the case of the respondents that on 8th August, 2005, the respondents sold the goods to the highest bidder for Rs.25,91,480/- in the said auction conducted on 8th August, 2005. The respondents informed the petitioners about the auction sale. 6. In response to the said advertisement, 19 bidders submitted their quotations. It is the case of the respondents that on 8th August, 2005, the respondents sold the goods to the highest bidder for Rs.25,91,480/- in the said auction conducted on 8th August, 2005. The respondents informed the petitioners about the auction sale. 6. On 8th August, 2005, the petitioners alleged that the respondents had committed a breach of clause 7 of the policies by sale of goods and by not submitting a list of damaged properties and not making claims within fifteen days of the alleged loss suffered by the respondents. On 23rd September, 2005, the respondents lodged a claim with the petitioners at the estimated loss of Rs.2,63,68,667/- and deducted a sum of Rs.25,61,480/- as salvage amount, Rs.2,60,500/- as machinery buyback amount and made the net claim of Rs.2,35,16,687/-. 7. On 16th November, 2005, the respondents requested the petitioners to release the claim amount pointing out that the financial position of the respondents was disturbed and the respondents required the finance to complete the export orders. It is the case of the respondents that on 23rd November, 2005, the respondents recorded the response to all the queries raised by the surveyor and delivered all the documents sought by the surveyor appointed by the petitioners. 8. It is the case of the petitioners that the partner of the respondents Mr. Anil Kumar Jain was in regular touch with the surveyor and was holding discussions with him and providing documents for verification as called by the surveyor. On verification, the said surveyor assessed the net loss of Rs.1,90,08,775/- and the said working was shown to the said partner of the respondents. It is the case of the petitioners that after being satisfied with the assessment of the net loss carried out by the surveyor, the respondents by their letter dated 22nd December, 2005 informed the petitioners that the respondents were agreeable to accept the net loss of Rs.1,90,08,775/- worked out by the surveyor and that they would accept the decision of the petitioners as final. It is however, the case of the respondents that the respondents had addressed the said letter dated 22nd December, 2005 under instructions of the surveyor who had forced the respondents to give written consent of the willingness to accept the assessment of Rs.1.90crores by writing a letter. 9. It is however, the case of the respondents that the respondents had addressed the said letter dated 22nd December, 2005 under instructions of the surveyor who had forced the respondents to give written consent of the willingness to accept the assessment of Rs.1.90crores by writing a letter. 9. it is the case of the petitioners that since the respondents were agreeable to accept the assessment of net loss of Rs.1,90,08,775/- as worked out by the surveyors, on 23rd December, 2005 the said surveyor submitted their final report No.1505/0524 to the regional office of the petitioners assessing the net loss of Rs.1,90,08,775/- towards the claim of the respondents. In the said surveyor's report, the surveyor had assessed the net loss after taking into consideration the salvage value of the damaged goods at Rs.50.00lakhs and excess at 5%. The surveyors recommended to the petitioners to take a lenient view and not to reject and forfeit the claim of the respondents as a result of breach of warranty/condition of the policy by strict enforcement of the legal position which would cause hardship to the respondents and as per the fire insurance claim IC – 56 guidelines, recommended to treat the claim as Non- Standard and to process the claim at 75% of the assessed loss according to said guidelines. 10. It is the case of the petitioners that in view of the said letter addressed by the respondents and in view of the discussions held between the petitioners, the surveyor and the partner of the respondents, the surveyor had jointly worked out with the respondents a net amount of Rs.1,27,08,367/- to be paid in respect of policy No.260201/11/05/3100000005 and net sum of Rs.17,05,650/- in respect of policy No.260201/11/05/3100000004, totaling to Rs.1,44,14,017/- subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. It is the case of the petitioners that the said amount was arrived at after several meetings between the petitioners, surveyor and the said Anil Kumar Jain, one of the partners of the respondents, who was convinced with the correctness of the final amount offered on the Non-Standard basis due to the breach of the policy conditions. 11. It is the case of the petitioners that the said amount was arrived at after several meetings between the petitioners, surveyor and the said Anil Kumar Jain, one of the partners of the respondents, who was convinced with the correctness of the final amount offered on the Non-Standard basis due to the breach of the policy conditions. 11. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents accordingly submitted an affidavit dated 16th October, 2006 agreeing to accept a sum of Rs.1,44,14,017/- less difference premium in full and final settlement from the petitioners and agreed not to make any claim or demand for any other amount or for difference any time in future. The petitioners made a draft of the said affidavit available to the respondents. It is case of the petitioners that the said draft of the said affidavit was made available to the respondents by the petitioners pursuant to the request made by Mr. Sameer Pathan of the respondents. The petitioners thereafter issued a cheque bearing No.396591 dated 20th October, 2006 of Rs.1,44,14,017/- in favour of the respondents. It is the case of the petitioners that the respondents received the said cheque in full and final settlement of their claim under both the policies and also executed two vouchers accepting the said payment in full and final settlement and absolving the petitioners from all the liabilities present or future arising directly or indirectly out of the said loss or damage under both the policies. 12. The respondents by their letter dated 30th October, 2006 to the petitioners alleged that they were forced to accept a sum of Rs.1,72,00,000/- as settlement amount because the settlement was getting delayed and they were facing acute financial crises. It was further alleged by the respondents that unfair settlement was on account of major difference in the salvage value actually realized and amount of Rs.50.00lakhs towards the salvage as assessed by the surveyor and requested the petitioners to pay the balance claim. 13. It is the case of the respondents that on 7th November, 2006, the petitioners promised the respondents during the telephonic conversation that they would seek advice from their higher authorities regarding the claim amount and would give reply to the letter dated 30th October, 2006. 14. On 4th December, 2006, the respondents sent a reminder to the petitioners to consider their claim. 14. On 4th December, 2006, the respondents sent a reminder to the petitioners to consider their claim. On 2nd February, 2007 the petitioners informed the respondents that their letter dated 30th October, 2006 was misplaced by the petitioners. On 9th February, 2007, the respondents forwarded a copy of the earlier letter to the petitioners and requested the petitioners to reconsider the claim amount. 15. On 9th February, 2007, the respondents by their advocate's letter invoked arbitration clause no.13 of the policies demanding the reference of the quantum dispute to arbitration. The respondents suggested the name of a retired Judge of this Court as the sole arbitrator. The respondents thereafter sent a reminder to the petitioner to pay the balance amount on 6th March, 2007. 16. The respondents thereafter filed Arbitration Petition No.196 of 2007 under section 11 of the said Arbitration act in this Court. By an order dated 5th February, 2010, the learned designate Judge of the Chief Justice appointed a retired Judge of this Court as the sole arbitrator. Pursuant to the directions issued by the learned arbitrator, the respondents filed the statement of claim on 14th June, 2010, claiming an amount of Rs.1,78,80,003/- comprising of Rs.91,02,670/- being the difference of the amount claimed by the respondents and paid by the petitioners, Rs.38,61,891/- being interest at 18% p.a. on Rs.2,35,16,687/- for a period 23rd December, 2005 till 20th October, 2006 at Rs.49,15,442/- being the interest at 18% p.a. on Rs.91,02,670/- for a period 21st October, 2006 till filing of the proceedings. The petitioners filed their statement of defence of 23rd August, 2010 raising various pleas, including a plea that the dispute was not arbitrable as per clause 13 of the insurance policy. The parties filed further pleadings before the learned arbitrator. On 3rd December, 2010, the learned arbitrator finalized the points for determination. On 27th December, 2010, the respondents filed affidavit of evidence of their partner Anil Kumar Jain in lieu of examination in chief along with list of documents. The said witness was cross-examined on behalf of the petitioners on various dates. The petitioners filed affidavit of their two witnesses in lieu of examination in chief who were cross-examined on behalf of the respondents on various dates. 17. The said witness was cross-examined on behalf of the petitioners on various dates. The petitioners filed affidavit of their two witnesses in lieu of examination in chief who were cross-examined on behalf of the respondents on various dates. 17. On 20th March, 2012, the learned arbitrator made an award directing the petitioners to pay a sum of Rs.91,02,670/- together with interest thereon at 12% p.a. from 23rd December, 2005 till 20th October, 2006 on Rs.1,44,14,017/-, interest at the rate of 18% on Rs.91,02,670/- from the date of the award till payment and/or realization whichever is earlier and Rs.16,04,201/- as costs of arbitration. The said arbitral award has been impugned in this petition by the petitioners. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that since the respondents had accepted the payment of Rs.1,44,14,017/- plus price for sale of salvage sold in full and final settlement and having not raised any dispute prior to acceptance of the payment, there were no disputes or differences as to the quantum to be paid prior to the acceptance of the payment and thus under clause 13 of the policies, the dispute raised by the respondents was not arbitrable. It is submitted that the interpretation of the learned arbitrator that since there existed vast difference between the quantum claimed by the respondents and the payment made by the petitioners, the dispute was arbitrable is contrary to clause 13 of the policies and such interpretation is untenable. 19. It is submitted by the learned counsel that since the claim was not lodged by the respondents within fifteen days on the happening of any loss or damage with the petitioners by the respondents, the respondents were precluded from making any such claim against the petitioners. There was a prohibition under clause 6 of the policies from making any such claim after fifteen days. The learned arbitrator has acted contrary to clause 6 of the policies and has allowed the prohibited claims against the petitioners. 20. It is submitted by the learned counsel that under clause 7(d) of the policies, right to sell the salvage was only with the petitioners and not with the respondents, which right could be exercised by the petitioners at any time until a notice in writing was given by the respondents that they would make no claim under the policies. 20. It is submitted by the learned counsel that under clause 7(d) of the policies, right to sell the salvage was only with the petitioners and not with the respondents, which right could be exercised by the petitioners at any time until a notice in writing was given by the respondents that they would make no claim under the policies. It is submitted that in this case, the respondents had not informed the petitioners that the respondents would not make any claim in respect of salvage. The learned counsel submits that since the claims made by the respondents were pending consideration before the petitioners, the disposal of the salvage was always within the powers of the petitioners and not the respondents. Since the respondents had unilaterally sold the salvage without any intimation to the petitioners depriving the petitioners of selling such salvage, the respondents were not entitled to any benefits under the policies in question. He submits that the sale of salvage was ex-facie in breach of clause 7 of the policies. The learned arbitrator has awarded the claims in favour of the respondents in breach of clause 7 of the policies. 21. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that till 4th August, 2005, admittedly the survey could not be done even according to the respondents in view of the electricity not having been restored. On 6th August, 2005, the respondents had issued an advertisement in two newspapers for sale of salvage without any notice to the petitioners. The respondents also did not give any opportunity to the petitioners to survey the status of such salvage and sold the salvage on 8th August, 2005 in breach of the policies. 22. Learned counsel submits that in the cross-examination of the witness examined by the respondents, the respondents had accepted the valuation report of the surveyor. The respondents had for about ten to twelve months did not make any allegations of duress and coercion in filing affidavit and issuing a receipt thereby accepting the amounts offered by the petitioners and agreeing not to make any claim whatsoever in future. The respondents also did not allege at any point of time prior to the receipt of cheque that the settlement between the parties was unfair or that the salvage calculated by the surveyor at Rs.50.00lakhs was incorrect. The respondents also did not allege at any point of time prior to the receipt of cheque that the settlement between the parties was unfair or that the salvage calculated by the surveyor at Rs.50.00lakhs was incorrect. The allegations of duress came to be made only when a notice invoking the arbitration agreement issued by about three months from the date of the receipt of the payment. 23. Learned counsel invited my attention to the various parts of the cross-examination of the witness examined by the respondents and would submit that there was no economic duress as alleged by the respondents in the statement of claim. The respondents themselves had got the affidavit typed, stamped and notarized and only thereafter had sent the said affidavit to the petitioners for payment. Learned counsel submits that the witness examined by the respondents had admitted in cross-examination that there were several orders received by the respondents for supply of various materials and that they had received the financial assistance from the bank. It is submitted that the allegation of the respondents that there was an economic duress which compelled the respondents to sign such affidavit acknowledging the payment in full and final settlement and that the respondents would not make any claim in future was false and incorrect. 24. It is submitted by the learned counsel that since the respondents had denied the contents of the surveyor's report, the respondents could not have been permitted to rely upon any part of the survey report and thus were required to prove their claim independently by leading appropriate evidence before the learned arbitrator. The learned arbitrator could not have allowed the respondents to rely upon any part of the surveyor's report in support of their claim. Since there was no appropriate evidence led by the respondents to prove their claim independently, the award rendered by the learned arbitrator is based on no evidence. 25. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the following judgments in support of the plea that since the respondents had accepted the entire amount in full and final settlement of their claim and there was complete accord and satisfaction, the claims made by the respondents were not arbitrable and the learned arbitrator could not have decided the allegations of duress and coercion against the petitioners. 1) In the case of Chairman & Managing Director, NTPC Ltd. vs. Reshmi Constructions Builders & Contractors, AIR 2004, SCC 1330 (paragraphs 35 to 37) 2) In the case of Kapurchand Godha v. Mir Nawab Himayatalikhan Azamjah, AIR 1963 SC 250 = (1963) 2 SCR 168 (paragraphs 7 to 9) 3) An order dated 26th August, 2011 in Arbitration Petition No.400 of 2007, passed by the Bombay High Court : 4) In the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Boghara Polyfab (P) Ltd., (2009) 1 SCC 267 (paragraph 25) : 5) Delhi High Court judgment dated 27th October, 2009 in Arbitration Petition No.144 of 2008, M/s.Polystone & Fragrance Industries Pvt. Ltd. vs. National Insurance Company Limited. 26. In support of the submission that the respondents cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate, the learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the following judgments : 1) In the case of Pradeep Oil Corporation Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr., (2011) 5 SCC 270 (paragraphs 33, 34 and 35). 2) In the case of International Airport vs. Golden Chariot Airport, (2010) 10 SCC 422 (paragraphs 45 to 55) 3) In the case of R.N. Gosain A vs. Yashpal Dhir AIR 1993 SC 352 (paragraphs 9 and 10) 27. Learned counsel submits that the respondents could not have lodged any protest after acceptance of a cheque and thus no claim could be made by the respondents subsequently. In support of this submission, the learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Bhagwati Prasad Pawankumar vs. Union of India, AIR 2006 SCC 2331. 28. It is submitted by the learned counsel that since the respondents had committed various breaches of the policies, under the guidelines framed by the company, the petitioners were liable to release only up to 75% of the amount recommended by the surveyor in its report. In support of this submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Amalendu Sahoo vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., (2010) 4 SCC 536 and in particular paragraphs 11, 12, 14 and 15. 29. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Nitin Khandelwal, (2008) 11 SCC 259 in support of the aforesaid submission and in particular paragraphs 13 to 16. 30. Ltd., (2010) 4 SCC 536 and in particular paragraphs 11, 12, 14 and 15. 29. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Nitin Khandelwal, (2008) 11 SCC 259 in support of the aforesaid submission and in particular paragraphs 13 to 16. 30. It is submitted by the learned counsel that even the surveyor's report though appointed by the petitioners was not binding on the petitioners. In support of this submission, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Sri Venkateswara Syndicate vs. Oriental Insurance Company Limited & Anr. (2009) 8 SCC 507 = (2009) AIR SCW 6749. 31. In support of his submission that if the insured disputes the surveyor's report, he is required to prove the claims made by him, the learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court delivered on 4th October, 2005 in Arbitration Petition No.90 of 2005 in the case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Jaisu Shipping Company Pvt. Ltd. and in particular paragraph 6 thereof. 32. The learned counsel submits that the learned arbitrator has accepted the files containing various disputed documents produced by the respondents. The learned arbitrator has allowed huge claim of the respondents without any evidence. 33. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the learned arbitrator could not have awarded interest on damages and that too at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of the surveyor's report but could have awarded interest, if any, only from the date of award till payment and not for a period prior to the date of the award. It is submitted that awarding of interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of award is also exorbitant and shall be set aside. 34. Lastly, it is submitted that the award of the arbitration cost of Rs.16,04,201/- is also contrary to law and in conflict with the public policy. On the issue of interest raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Nipha Exports (P) Ltd., (2006) 8 SCC 156 and in particular paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 12. 35. On the issue of interest raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, he relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Nipha Exports (P) Ltd., (2006) 8 SCC 156 and in particular paragraphs 8, 9, 10, 12. 35. Learned counsel for the petitioners also placed reliance on the commentary of E.R. Hardy Ivamy, Professor in Law in University of London on “Fire and Motor Insurance”, and in particular on the topic “Salvage of the Property”, rights and duties of the insured and insurers. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the commentary by M.B. Gopal and Raghawan on the law and practice of fire insurance. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS: 36. Mr. Kapadia, learned counsel for the respondents submits that though the respondents have made claims after 15 days of the loss having been suffered in view of the flood, it is not in dispute that the petitioners had entertained such claims made by the respondents and thus the petitioners have waived their rights if any under clause 6 of the policies and could not have been permitted to urge this submission before the learned arbitrator as well as in the present proceedings. Similarly in so far as alleged breach of clause 7 of the policy by the respondents is concerned, it is submitted that the petitioners have waived their rights if any, under clause 7 in view of the petitioners having made payment of 75% of the recommended amount to the respondents. 37. Insofar as the issue about arbitrability of the claims in view of clause 13 of the policies is concerned, learned counsel submits that since there was a duress on the part of the petitioners upon the respondents and the consent of the respondents was obtained under such duress by the petitioners which was established, the petitioners having paid lessor amount than what was due and payable by the petitioners to the respondents, quantity dispute existed and thus the claims made by the respondents were arbitrable and were not contrary to clause 13 of the policies. Learned counsel placed reliance on the order passed by the then learned Acting Chief Justice in Arbitration Application No.169 of 2007 filed by the respondents herein under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the petitioners herein. Learned counsel placed reliance on the order passed by the then learned Acting Chief Justice in Arbitration Application No.169 of 2007 filed by the respondents herein under section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the petitioners herein. It is submitted that the plea now raised in this proceeding was also raised by the petitioners in the said proceedings filed under section 11 of the Arbitration Act. By the said order dated 9th February, 2010 passed by the then Acting Chief Justice holding that if the Chief Justice or his designate is satisfied prima facie that the discharge voucher was not issued voluntarily and the claimant was under some compulsion or coercion, and that the matter deserved detailed consideration, he may instead of deciding the issue himself, refer the matter to the arbitral tribunal with a specific directions that the said question should be decided in the first instance. It is held that the respondents herein had made out a prima-facie case which required adjudication. In the said order, the learned Acting Chief Justice followed the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. M/s. Boghara Ployfab Pvt. Ltd. and appointed former judge of this court as an arbitrator. Relying upon the said order passed in the said Arbitration Application No.169 of 2007, learned counsel submits that the issue of arbitrability thus cannot be raised by the petitioners in these proceedings or could not have been raised even before the learned arbitrator. 38. Learned counsel invited my attention to the correspondence exchanged between the parties which were forming part of the record before the learned arbitrator and also some part of the oral evidence. In so far as submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents could not have sold the salvage without completion of the surveyor's visit report is concerned, it is submitted that though the respondents had tried to contact the surveyor appointed by the petitioners, the surveyor being very busy in view of large number of claims made by several insured parties having affected due to flood, the surveyor was not able to visit each and every premises for the purpose of survey. With a view to mitigate further loss and in view of the problems of hygenity and odor smell and lack of space and since the respondents were to restart the business, the respondents were forced to sell the salvage without waiting for the visit of the surveyor. He submits that the surveyor was very busy and even otherwise unable to visit the premises of the respondents for the purpose of survey immediately. 39. Learned counsel submits that the respondents had produced all the relevant documents before the surveyor, including the invoices issued by the respondents, the documents relating to the tender invited by the respondents and the details of the payment received from the successful bidder including the relevant bank statements. He submits that a sum of Rs.25.00lakhs received from the sale of salvage was adjusted against the total claim of Rs.2.63crores recoverable by the respondents from the petitioners. The surveyor appointed by the petitioners also agreed in the survey report that there was no breach committed by the respondents in selling the salvage in the circumstances referred to in the said report. The surveyor had scrutinized the documents produced by the respondents however without any basis recommended the salvage value at Rs.50.00lakhs instead of Rs.25.00lakhs. He submits that though the surveyor was examined as one of the witness by the petitioners, the surveyor could not prove as to how the said sum of Rs.50lacs recommended to be the value of salvage by the surveyor was the correct amount. 40. Insofar as the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the surveyor's report once having been disputed by the respondents, no part of such surveyor's report could be relied upon by the respondents is concerned, he submits that even in the statement of claim as well as in the rejoinder the respondents had also relied upon part of the surveyor's report. It is submitted that the petitioners themselves had relied upon the said report and had acted upon the recommendation made by the surveyor and had examined the said surveyor as one of the witness to prove the correctness of the said report before the learned arbitrator which was forming part of the record, the petitioners cannot be allowed to raise any objection if the respondents also seek to rely upon any part of such surveyor's report which was forming part of the evidence before the learned arbitrator. Learned counsel distinguished the judgment of this court in case of United India Insurance Company Limited vs. Jaisu Shipping Co. Pvt. Ltd., delivered on 4th October, 2005 in Arbitration Petition No.90 of 2005. 41. It is submitted that the surveyor examined by the petitioners in their surveyor report had observed that the surveyor had already made enquiry from the purchaser of the salvage and observed that there was no breach on the part of the respondents in selling the salvage, the sale of salvage conducted by the respondents was justified. 42. Learned counsel relied upon part of the oral evidence led by the witness examined by the respondents and submits that even in the oral evidence led by the respondents, it was proved beyond the reasonable doubt that the surveyor was informed about the sale of salvage from time to time and was also called by the respondents to visit the factory of the respondents for the purpose of valuation of the loss suffered by the respondents and also to carry out the valuation of the salvage. The surveyor was however very busy and was unable to visit factory premises of the respondents. 43. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioners did not address any letter to the respondents alleging any breaches of any of the provisions of the policies. There was unexplained delay on the part of the petitioners to release the payment for 8 to 10 months from the date of the receipt of the surveyor's report though the respondents were running from pillar to post for getting the payment. It was case of the economic duress on the respondents committed by the petitioners. 44. Insofar as submission of the petitioners that the respondents having filed affidavit stating in clear term that the amount mentioned therein was in full and final settlement of all their claims and thus there was accord and satisfaction is concerned, learned counsel submits that the draft of such affidavit was sent by the petitioners to the respondents with a direction to file such affidavit strictly in accordance with such draft. The witness examined by the petitioners also admitted that such draft was given by the petitioners to the respondents for processing the claims of the respondents. The witness examined by the petitioners also admitted that such draft was given by the petitioners to the respondents for processing the claims of the respondents. The respondents thus had no alternate then to file such affidavit and receiving the amount at least to the extent the surveyor of the petitioners had recommended and then to make the claim for the balance amount. The respondents had proved their allegations of duress against the petitioners by leading oral as well as documentary evidence before the learned arbitrator. 45. The learned arbitrator has rendered findings in the impugned award which cannot be interfered with by this court under its limited scope under section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners had not even submitted a copy of the surveyor report to the respondents for its perusal. Learned counsel submits that the demand of such affidavit and advance receipt from the respondents before even considering the claims of the respondents by the petitioners was not in normal circumstances and was contrary to the business principles. The petitioners in ordinary course ought to have made payment whatever was due and payable according to the petitioners and if according to the respondents any further sum was due and payable by the petitioners to the respondents, the respondents could have raised dispute for the balance amount. Learned counsel submits that the term economic duress is different from the commercial bargaining. He submits that for the purpose of proving the allegations that there was economic duress by the petitioners upon the respondents, it is not necessary for the respondents to prove that he had come on the street and therefore was forced and compelled to sign such affidavit and advance receipt. 46. It is submitted by the learned counsel that in view of the flood and the petitioners not having released amount due to the respondents, the respondents had already suffered monetary losses as well as production. Various orders placed by the customers of the respondents were cancelled. The respondents were without any compensation for about 15 months. There was a complete economic duress upon the respondents by the petitioners. It is submitted by the learned counsel that since the consent of the respondents was not a free consent, such consent is revocable at the option of the respondents whose consent was obtained by coercion and duress. The respondents were without any compensation for about 15 months. There was a complete economic duress upon the respondents by the petitioners. It is submitted by the learned counsel that since the consent of the respondents was not a free consent, such consent is revocable at the option of the respondents whose consent was obtained by coercion and duress. In support of this submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Dai-ichi Karkaria Private Limited Vs. Oil and Natural Gas Commission, reported in 1991 (4) Bom.C.R. 631 and in particular paragraph 36 thereof. 47. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Boghara Polyfab Private Limited, reported in (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 267. The Supreme Court has held that procedure for obtaining full and final discharge/settlement voucher/no-dues certificate from the private contractors by government departments/Public Sector Undertakings/Statutory Corporations acknowledging receipts of the sums less than the claim 'in full and final settlement' of all claims, as a condition precedent for releasing even admitted dues is unfair, irregular and illegal and requires to be deprecated. 48. Learned counsel fairly submits that in so far as the sum of Rs.11.77lakhs which is awarded by the learned arbitrator is concerned, under clause 1(a) of the policy, the Insurance Company is allowed to deduct such amount from the claim amount of the insured and thus the respondents have no objection if this amount of Rs.11.77lakhs awarded by the learned arbitrator only is set aside by this Court in this petition filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act. Statement is accepted. 49. In so far as recommendation of the surveyor valuing salvage of Rs.50.00lakhs is concerned, the learned counsel invited my attention to the cross-examination of the surveyor who admitted that there was no evidence for any marketing enquiry conducted by the surveyor. There was no basis for reduction of rates. 50. In so far as the reduction of rates recommended by the surveyor is concerned, the learned counsel invited my attention to the findings rendered that such reduction was not proper and reduction was found invalid. There was no basis for reduction of rates. 50. In so far as the reduction of rates recommended by the surveyor is concerned, the learned counsel invited my attention to the findings rendered that such reduction was not proper and reduction was found invalid. In so far as the furniture’s, fixtures and fittings are concerned, it is submitted that since the respondents were permitted to buy-back those items, there is no question of any salvage as considered by the surveyor of Rs.27,579.95/-. 51. Learned counsel tendered a chart showing the amounts recommended by the surveyor in his report including the deduction considered in the said report in support of the submission that some of the recommendations made by the surveyor were illegal and not proved in the evidence led by the surveyor on behalf of the petitioners. 52. Learned counsel for the respondents then submits that the petitioners had accepted the survey report in to. The surveyor had also opined that there were no breaches committed by the respondents in so far as the sale of salvage is concerned. Since the petitioners had produced the survey report by examining the surveyor before the learned arbitrator, the respondents are also entitled to rely upon the evidence produced by the petitioners to the extent the surveyor having found the claim of the respondents as genuine. The respondents are also entitled to rely upon the evidence led by the petitioners in support of their claim. The surveyor had considered the documents of the respondents and had derived the rates but made deduction there from without any evidence. The surveyor had cross verified the documents produced by the respondents in the said survey report. 53. In so far as deduction of 25% of the amount recommended by the surveyor of the petitioners is concerned, it is submitted that the petitioners did not produce any guidelines before the learned arbitrator nor such guidelines were forming part of the policy. No material was produced before the learned arbitrator to indicate that such guidelines were applicable to the policy between the parties. The petitioners had failed to prove that such guidelines were forming part of the contract. Since even according to the surveyor, no breach was committed by the respondents, the petitioners could not have deducted any such amount. Such deduction was totally illegal. The petitioners had failed to prove that such guidelines were forming part of the contract. Since even according to the surveyor, no breach was committed by the respondents, the petitioners could not have deducted any such amount. Such deduction was totally illegal. The learned counsel invited my attention to the cross-examination of the surveyor who admitted in the cross-examination that the respondents had no choice but to submit an affidavit and no claim certificate. 54. Learned counsel submits that the learned arbitrator has rightly awarded interest in favour of the respondents and the same was not in violation of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policy-holders' Interest) Regulations, 2002 as canvassed by the petitioners. Since there was a gross delay on the part of the petitioners in releasing the amount as recommended by the surveyor within the time prescribed in the said regulations of 2002, the learned arbitrator was justified and was empowered to grant interest in view of the delay on the part of the petitioners in releasing the amount. Learned counsel invited my attention to Regulations 9 (1) and 9 (2) of the said Regulations in support of the aforesaid submission. Learned arbitrator has allowed interest @12% p.a. from 23rd December 2005 i.e. after expiry of three months from the date of the claim. 55. In the rejoinder, Mr. Vernekar, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondents cannot be allowed to pick up any part of the survey report. Since the respondents have disputed the survey report, the respondents were liable to prove the entire claim independently of the survey report in favour of the respondents. The petitioners had accepted the survey report in to and since there were breaches committed by the respondents, the petitioners were entitled to deduct 25% of the amount recommended by the surveyor. It is submitted that on 13th October 2006, the petitioners had made offer for settlement of the liability and on 20th October 2006, the petitioners had already released payment i.e. within 7 days from the date of such offer. The question of payment of any interest, therefore, did not arise. It is submitted that since the respondents were required to prove that deductions were illegal and were not proved, the learned arbitrator could not have granted such claim in favour of the respondents. REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS : Accord and satisfaction – arbitrable claims :- 56. The question of payment of any interest, therefore, did not arise. It is submitted that since the respondents were required to prove that deductions were illegal and were not proved, the learned arbitrator could not have granted such claim in favour of the respondents. REASONS AND CONCLUSIONS : Accord and satisfaction – arbitrable claims :- 56. The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently urged that the respondents had accepted payment of Rs.1,44,14,017/- plus the price for sale of the salvage sold in full and final settlement and have signed the affidavit and the payment receipt stating that no other amount was due and payable by the petitioners to the respondents and thus there was complete accord and satisfaction of the claims made by the respondents and thus the claims made by the respondents were not arbitrable. In support of this submission, learned counsel invited my attention to the various parts of the oral evidence led by the parties and also the correspondence entered into between the parties. Learned counsel also placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court and this Court in support of this submission. 57. Learned counsel for the respondents also on the other hand invited my attention to various parts of the oral evidence led by the parties and also the judgments of the Supreme Court and this Court and distinguished the judgments relied upon by the petitioners. It is submitted by learned counsel that after considering the entire documentary as well as oral evidence led by the parties, the learned arbitrator has rendered a finding of fact which finding is not perverse and thus cannot be interfered with by this Court under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. 58. Both the parties have examined the witnesses before the learned arbitrator. In the cross-examination of the witness examined by the respondents, the witness did not agree that in the month of December, 2005 the surveyor had informed the respondents that they had assessed the net loss at Rs.1,90,08,775/-. The witness deposed that the surveyor had informed the respondents to give an undertaking of Rs.1.90crores and told that the respondents would get the payment within one week. The witness deposed that the surveyor had informed the respondents to give an undertaking of Rs.1.90crores and told that the respondents would get the payment within one week. In reply to question No.86 when the witness was shown a letter dated 22nd December, 2005 addressed by the respondents to the petitioners, the witness deposed that the said letter was addressed by the respondents however, the format of the said letter was given by the surveyor. The witness denied the suggestion of the petitioners that the said letter dated 22nd December, 2005 was issued by the respondents because they had agreed and accepted the assessment of Rs.1,90,08,775/- made by the surveyor. The witness deposed that their claim was for Rs.2,63,68,667/-. The respondents were in financial trouble and therefore, were forced to agree as the surveyor had promised that the money would be paid within weeks time. The respondents had to complete further export orders and needed money. 59. The witness further deposed that he had told the surveyor that the claim of the respondents was Rs.2,63,68,667/- and the assessment loss was much more. The surveyor said that if the respondents refuse to accept the lower amount, then the respondents would not get even that much amount. When the witness was asked as to why the respondents did not withdraw their consent though the amount was not paid by the petitioners for over 10 to 12 months even after the alleged assurance was given by the surveyor, the witness deposed that the surveyor had informed him that if he did not agree to accept the lower amount, the claim of the respondents would be rejected. The witness of the respondents had personally visited the branch office of the petitioners and requested for some on account money but was told that they were still studying the surveyor's report and as soon as the same was over, money would be paid. The witness was also told that if the respondents withdrew their consent, the respondents would not get even that much amount of money. 60. The witness was also told that if the respondents withdrew their consent, the respondents would not get even that much amount of money. 60. The witness in the cross-examination further deposed that there were meetings between the petitioners, respondents and the surveyor in which the witness had informed the branch manager of the petitioners that the claim of the respondents was Rs.2,63,68,667/- and the surveyor had forced him to accept the lower amount of Rs.1,90,08,775/- and that he would get the cheque within week's time but still the respondents had not received the same. The witness however, could not produce any letter addressed by the respondents for a period of 10 months.