JUDGMENT : 1. The Applicant M/s. MIRC Electronics Ltd. has filed the above Application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (“the Act”) for appointment of a sole arbitrator under the provisions of the Act. 2. The Respondent the Oriental Insurance Company Limited has opposed the Application on the ground that an amount of Rs. 39.78 crores has been paid by the Respondent to the Applicant towards full and final settlement of their claim, for which the Applicant has signed a discharge voucher. 3. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this Application are as under: 3.1 The Applicant is in the business of manufacturing electronic products. The Applicant’s plant/factory is situated at Unit No. 2, Village Mundyaki, NH-58, Delhi-Roorkee Highway, Dist. Haridwar, Roorkee, Uttarakhand (the “said premises”). The Applicant had taken two Standard Fire and Special Perils Policies from the Respondent, being Stock Policy bearing No. 131201/11/2012/209 and Asset Policy bearing No. 131201/11/2012/205, both dated 20th January, 2012 (“the said Policies”). The location of risk shown in the said Policies was the said premises. The said Policies are annexed and marked Exhibits-A and B respectively to the Application. Clause 13 of the General Terms and Conditions of the said two Policies, pertain to arbitration and the said clause is reproduced hereunder: "If any dispute or difference shall arise as to the quantum to be paid under this policy (liability being otherwise admitted) such difference shall independently of all other questions be referred to the decisions of a sole arbitrator to be appointed in writing by the parties to or if they cannot agree upon a single arbitrator within 30 days of any party invoking arbitration, the same shall be referred to a panel of three arbitrators comprising of two arbitrators, one to be appointed by each of the parties to the dispute/difference and the third arbitrator to be appointed by such two arbitrators and arbitration shall be conducted under and in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996". 3.2 A fire broke out on the said premises on 8th February, 2012, after which the Applicant lodged its claim for Rs. 55 crores with the Respondent in respect of the loss caused to the Applicant due to the fire. Thereafter the Applicant revised its claim and claimed only Rs. 49.75 crores. 3.2 A fire broke out on the said premises on 8th February, 2012, after which the Applicant lodged its claim for Rs. 55 crores with the Respondent in respect of the loss caused to the Applicant due to the fire. Thereafter the Applicant revised its claim and claimed only Rs. 49.75 crores. 3.3 On 9th February, 2012, the first Surveyor i.e. Absolute Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. was appointed by the Respondent. After initial assessment, the first Surveyor submitted their Interim Report dated 1st September, 2012, to the Respondent. 3.4 According to the Applicant, after rigorous follow up for a period of seven months with the Respondent, the Respondent finally released an amount of Rs. 15 crores on 19th April, 2013 as on account payment. 3.5 In or about December, 2013, the first Surveyor had already completed the total assessment of the claim of the Applicant. However, in January, 2014 the Respondent appointed a second Surveyor M/s. Cunningham Lindsey International Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. as a joint Surveyor without any prior intimation to the Applicant. According to the Applicant, they had registered their protest qua the appointment of the second/joint Surveyor on the ground that the first Surveyor had already completed the total assessment of the claim and the appointment of a joint Surveyor at such a belated stage would further unduly delay the settlement of the balance claim and consequential payment by the Respondent to the Applicant. However, the Respondent did not take any cognizance of the said protest and directed the joint Surveyors to proceed with the total assessment of the claim. 3.6 The joint Surveyors appointed by the Respondent assessed a net amount of Rs. 42.35 crores as payable by the Respondent against the total claim lodged by the Applicant, which according to the Applicant was incorrect and unsatisfactory since the Applicant was actually covered for hundred per cent of the claim value. According to the Applicant, to avoid further delay in settlement of their claim and with a hope to improve the financial stability of the Company, they consented "under economic duress" for the net value of Rs. 42.35 crores as assessed by the Joint Surveyors. 3.7 On 10th September, 2015, the Respondent forwarded a Discharge Voucher, whereunder the Applicant was now required to accept only Rs. 39,78,00,000/- in full and final settlement of its claim. 42.35 crores as assessed by the Joint Surveyors. 3.7 On 10th September, 2015, the Respondent forwarded a Discharge Voucher, whereunder the Applicant was now required to accept only Rs. 39,78,00,000/- in full and final settlement of its claim. The contents of the Discharge Voucher are reproduced hereunder:- "In consideration of approval of my/our claim I/we hereby accept from the Oriental Insurance Company Limited the sum of Rs. 39,78,00,000/- Rupees Thirty Nine Crores Seventy Eight Lacs only in full and final settlement of above 2 claims for Fire Loss which occurred on 08.02.2012 covered under Policy No. 131200/11/2012/205 & 209 for the period from 01.01.2012 to 31.12.2012. We hereby voluntarily give discharge receipt to the Company in full and final settlement of all our claims present or future arising directly/indirectly in respect of the said loss/accident. We hereby also subrogate all my/our right and remedies to the Company in respect of the above loss/damages. Rs. 39,78,00,000/- Full and Final settled claim amount. Rs. 15,00,00,000/- On Account Payment done on 18.04.2013. Rs. 24,78,00,000/- Balance claim payable amount." According to the Applicant, whilst they were awaiting the final clearance and payment, they were shocked to learn from the joint Surveyors that the Respondent had arbitrarily directed the Surveyors to deduct a further 5 per cent of the net assessed amount under the heading "deductible excess", contrary to the terms of the aforesaid Insurance Policies. The Applicant informed the joint Surveyors to record their protest in respect of the incorrect deduction of the additional 5 per cent in their Final Report, which was recorded by the joint Surveyors in their Final Report dated 16th February, 2015 submitted to the Respondent on 20th February, 2015. 3.8 According to the Applicant, despite submission of the Final Report by the Joint Surveyors to the Respondent on 20th February, 2015, and despite repeated follow ups thereafter by the Applicant with the Respondent, the Respondent failed and neglected to make payments to the Applicant. According to the Applicant, due to the continuing delay in release of the balance insurance claim, the Chairman and Managing Director of the Applicant met the Chairman of the Respondent on numerous occasions. According to the Applicant, due to the continuing delay in release of the balance insurance claim, the Chairman and Managing Director of the Applicant met the Chairman of the Respondent on numerous occasions. Though the Chairman of the Respondent in one of the meetings assured the Applicant that the balance claim shall be released and remitted to the Applicant within seven days of receipt of the file at the Head Office, the Applicant did not receive any amounts from the Respondent. 3.9 The Applicant therefore vide its letter dated 20th August, 2015, addressed to the Chairman of the Respondent (Exhibit-E to the Application) recorded all the aforestated facts including its protest as regards the wrongful deduction by the Respondent from the amount claimed by the Applicant under the heading "deductible excess", and the non-release of payment even after passage of more than three and half years. 3.10 The Respondent not only did not respond to the Applicant's letter dated 20th August, 2015, but even after receipt of the said letter, the Respondent did not make any payment to the Applicant. 3.11 The Applicant again addressed a letter dated 14th September, 2015 to the Respondent (Exhibit-G to the Application) wherein after repeating the grievances set out in its earlier letter dated 20th August, 2015, further recorded as follows: (i) That the Applicant repeatedly informed the Head Office of the Respondent to release the balance claim amount without any deductions at the earliest, since owing to the continuous delay in release of the said balance amount, the Applicant was forced to: (a) sell its assets, (b) shut down certain business operations, (c) delay the release of payments to the employees and workmen, statutory authorities, vendors, transporters, contractors, etc. thereby consequently adversely affecting the day to day functioning of the Company and its units and thereby making it practically difficult to carry out the day to day functions, and forcing the Company operations to come to a standstill. (ii) That the Applicant had also informed the Respondent that due to the delay and failure in releasing the balance claim amount, the Applicant had faced lots of difficulties in making timely payment to its Bankers, and the Applicant was also not in a position to make any investment towards development, marketing and servicing of its products and was thereby continuously loosing its market share. (iii) That the Applicant repeatedly informed the Head Office of the Respondent that the Bankers and statutory Auditors of the Applicant were regularly following up with the Applicant in respect of the status of release of pending insurance claim amount and the Applicant was unable to explain the inordinate delay, nor give any commitment as to when the claim amount would be received. The Head Office was also informed that besides loss of opportunity and credibility with the Bankers and the other stakeholders, the Applicant had also lost by way of interest alone, a sum in excess of Rs. 19.13 crores on account of continuous delay in payment of the balance claim amount which the Respondent was liable to pay to the Applicant. (iv) That the Applicant had received a standard Discharge Voucher from the Respondent wherein the Respondent had stated that they have assessed a loss of Rs. 39.78 crores only and that the Applicant was shocked and surprised that the Respondent had further deducted an additional amount of Rs. 45 lakhs without any intimation to the Applicant, contrary to the joint Surveyor's Final Report. (v) That a standard Discharge Voucher was handed over to the official of the Applicant by the Respondent on 10th September, 2015, and the Applicant was given to understand that in the event they choose to accept the amount of Rs. 39.78 crores under protest or demur, then the Respondent shall not release the balance payment to the Bank account of the Applicant and therefore accepting the Discharge Voucher had been made a pre-condition by the Respondent for the Applicant to get its balance payment. (vi) That the Applicant was in a very dire financial position and was running from pillar to post for their daily financial needs and therefore they had no option but to succumb to the pressure exerted by the Respondent and accept the amount as full and final settlement under economic duress. (vii) That the Respondent has coerced the Applicant to give up and subrogate their legitimate claim of Rs. 8.57 crores which has been arbitrarily and wrongly deducted and are also entitled to interest at the rate of 17.75 per cent on the claim amount which aggregates to the tune of Rs. 19.13 crores from the date of lodgment of the claim till realisation. 8.57 crores which has been arbitrarily and wrongly deducted and are also entitled to interest at the rate of 17.75 per cent on the claim amount which aggregates to the tune of Rs. 19.13 crores from the date of lodgment of the claim till realisation. (viii) That the Respondent is called upon to pay the said amounts claimed by the Applicant within three days from the receipt of the said letter/notice dated 14th September, 2015. Copies of the said letter dated 14th September, 2015 were forwarded by the Applicant to Dr. A.K. Saxena, Chairman, Managing Director of the Respondent, and also to Mr. Kuldip Singh, Director and General Manager of the Respondent. The Respondent did not deny or dispute the contents of the said letter dated 14th September, 2015, despite having received the same. 3.12 Since the Respondent failed and neglected to pay any further amounts as claimed by the Applicant, the Applicant by its Advocate's letter dated 22nd September, 2015 invoked Clause 13 of the General Terms and Conditions and nominated Dr. Justice S. Radhakrishnan (Retd.) to act as a sole Arbitrator and called upon the Respondent to concur to the said name within 30 days from the said letter or nominate any other person to act as a sole arbitrator. The Respondent by its letter dated 20th October, 2015 contended that there is no need to refer the dispute to arbitration since the Applicant has accepted the amount in full and final settlement of their claim after signing the Discharge Voucher. 3.13 The Advocate for the Applicant by his letter dated 28th October, 2015, responded to the Respondent's letter dated 20th October, 2015 and inter alia pointed out that the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India ("IRDA") has issued a Circular bearing Reference No. IRDA/NL/CIR/Misc/173/09/2015 directing/informing the insurers that the execution of discharge voucher does not foreclose the rights of the policy holders to seek higher compensation before any judicial fora or any other forum established by law, and that even though the policy holder has signed the discharge voucher, the policy holder is not estopped from claiming a higher amount before any judicial fora, or any competent authority/court. The Advocate for the Applicant once again called upon the Respondent to either concur to the name nominated by the Applicant or nominate any other person to act as an Arbitrator. The Advocate for the Applicant once again called upon the Respondent to either concur to the name nominated by the Applicant or nominate any other person to act as an Arbitrator. The Respondent did not respond to the said letter dated 28th October, 2015 received by it from the Advocate for the Applicant. 4. In the circumstances, the Applicant filed the present Application under Section 11 of the Act seeking appointment of a sole Arbitrator to decide the disputes between the Applicant and the Respondent as stipulated under Clause 13 of the General Terms and Conditions of the Insurance Policies (Exhibits-A and B to the Application). 5. The Respondent has filed its Affidavit-in-Reply wherein the following contentions are raised: 5.1 That as a matter of procedure in case of large claims, the Respondent appoints a joint Surveyor for assessment of the loss "for good order purpose". 5.2 That the Respondent has correctly deducted 5 per cent of the claim amount and the Applicant was well informed about the same. 5.3 That well-established surveyors were appointed and based on their report the Respondent assessed loss at Rs. 40,23,85,216/- payable in full and final settlement of the claim amount. The Surveyors have also considered reduction of 10 per cent towards pre-operative cost while assessing Value at Risk (“VAR”). 5.4 That the deduction of Rs. 45 lacs was "due to under insurance in building". 5.5 That the Applicant "has not monitored the survey as regards the financial assessment of loss". 5.6 That after accepting the assessed loss amount and signing the official Discharge Voucher, the Applicant is wrong in contending that it has done so because of coercion by the Company. 5.7 That the allegation that the Respondent told the Applicant that unless the preprinted Discharge Voucher was signed by the Applicant, no amount shall be released to the Applicant, is incorrect. The Applicant was well informed about the amount which was sanctioned and the Applicant had taken an informed decision in the matter. 5.8 That the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Genus Power Infrastructure, (2015) 2 SCC 424 held that the contention that the discharge voucher was signed under coercion cannot be accepted when all the facts and figures are placed before the insured. 5.8 That the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs. Genus Power Infrastructure, (2015) 2 SCC 424 held that the contention that the discharge voucher was signed under coercion cannot be accepted when all the facts and figures are placed before the insured. 5.9 That the Applicant is not entitled to claim any further amounts from the Respondent and the above Application deserves to be dismissed. 6. The Learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant has taken me through all the facts set out in paragraph 3 above and has submitted that the said facts establish beyond any doubt that the Discharge Voucher was signed by the Applicant under coercion due to economic duress. It is further submitted that even otherwise IRDA has, by issuing an Office Circular dated 24th September, 2015, clarified that execution of such discharge vouchers does not foreclose the rights of the policy holder to seek higher compensation before any judicial fora, or any other for a established by law. In support of this contention, the learned Advocate appearing for the Applicant has relied on an unreported decision of the Delhi High Court dated 11th December, 2015 passed in Worldfa Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (Arbitration Petition No. 459 of 2015). The Learned Advocate has submitted that it is pertinent to note that the Respondent has neither in its Affidavit-in-Reply nor in its oral submissions dealt with the issue pertaining to the Circular dated 24th September, 2015 issued by IRDA and has also avoided to deal with the decision of the Delhi High Court in Worldfa Exports Pvt. Ltd. (supra). It is therefore submitted on behalf of the Applicant that the above Application be allowed. The Learned Advocate appearing for the Respondent has repeated what is set out in paragraph 5 hereinabove. However, he has not made any submission qua the Circular dated 24th September, 2015 issued by IRDA or qua the decision of the Delhi High Court in Worldfa Exports Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 7. I have perused the above Application and the Annexures thereto. I have also perused the Affidavit-in-Reply filed by the Respondent. I have also considered the submissions advanced by and on behalf of the parties. 7. I have perused the above Application and the Annexures thereto. I have also perused the Affidavit-in-Reply filed by the Respondent. I have also considered the submissions advanced by and on behalf of the parties. It is not disputed that the fire occurred during the currency of the Policies on 8th February, 2012 which spread to the entire factory building engulfing the machinery, stocks and other assets. In fact, the fire was of such magnitude that 11 persons got trapped in it and lost their lives. After the said incident of fire, the Applicant lodged a claim of Rs. 55 crores with the Respondent, which was later reduced to Rs. 49.75 crores. On 9th February, 2012, the first Surveyor i.e. Absolute Insurance Surveyors & Loss Assessors Pvt. Ltd. was appointed by the Respondent who submitted its Interim Report after a span of seven months. Even after the issue of the said Interim Report, no interim amount was immediately released to the Applicant. Only seven months thereafter i.e. on 19th April, 2013, an amount of Rs. 15 crores was released as ‘on-account payment’ to the Applicant. The Respondent again waited upto December, 2013, to enable the first Surveyor to complete the assessment of the claim and only in January, 2014 appointed a second Surveyor as a Joint Surveyor. The Applicant was thereafter surprised to learn that the Joint Surveyors have assessed the net amount of Rs. 42.35 crores payable to the Applicant against the total claim of Rs. 49.75 crores lodged by the Applicant, though the Applicant was entitled to receive hundred per cent of its claim. However, only to avoid delay in settlement of the claim, and with a hope to improve the financial stability of the Applicant, the Applicant under economic duress consented to accept Rs. 42.35 crores. Whilst they were awaiting the final clearance and payment, they were shocked to learn that further arbitrary deduction of 5 per cent contrary to the terms of the insurance policy is instructed by the Respondent. The Applicant objected to the same and also asked the Joint Surveyors to record their disagreement to such deduction, which the Joint Surveyors did in fact record in their Final Report dated 16th February, 2015. The Joint Surveyors therefore took more than one year to submit their Report after the first Surveyor had submitted its Report in December, 2013. The Applicant objected to the same and also asked the Joint Surveyors to record their disagreement to such deduction, which the Joint Surveyors did in fact record in their Final Report dated 16th February, 2015. The Joint Surveyors therefore took more than one year to submit their Report after the first Surveyor had submitted its Report in December, 2013. The Respondent even after receipt of the Final Report on 16th February, 2015, failed to make any payments to the Applicant because of which the Applicant by its letter dated 20th August, 2015 recorded how they were being made to wait for three and half years to receive their legitimate dues. In the said letter, the Applicant also recorded that due to the continuing delay in release of the balance amount, it was difficult for them to suffer the interest loss and it was impossible to absorb the same because of the lower margins on which they were operating. The Applicant also recorded that any further delay would endanger their existence and affect their survival also. The Respondent has not denied or disputed the contents of the said letter dated 20th August, 2015 received by them from the Applicant. In fact, the Respondent has not forwarded any response to the same. Only on 10th September, 2015, the Respondent issued a Discharge Voucher to the Applicant which contained the following clause: "We hereby voluntarily give discharge receipt to the Company in full and final settlement of all our claims present or future arising directly/indirectly in respect of the said loss/accident. We hereby also subrogate all my/our right and remedies to the Company in respect of the above loss/damages." Immediately on 14th September, 2015, the Applicant wrote a detailed letter to the Respondent inter alia setting out how they are running from pillar to post to receive their just claim and in view of the delay they were forced to sell off their assets, shut down certain business operations, etc., and how in view of the economic duress, they were forced to execute the Discharge Voucher. By the said letter, the Applicant also called upon the Respondent to make the balance payments as set out therein. Since the Respondent failed to make any balance payment as claimed by the Applicant, the Applicant invoked the arbitration clause. By the said letter, the Applicant also called upon the Respondent to make the balance payments as set out therein. Since the Respondent failed to make any balance payment as claimed by the Applicant, the Applicant invoked the arbitration clause. The Respondent refused to refer the matter to arbitration on the ground that a Discharge Voucher had been signed by the Applicant. 8. It is pertinent to note that the Respondent failed to respond and thereby also failed to deny and dispute the facts set out by the Applicant in their letters dated 20th August, 2015 and 14th September, 2015. In the Joint Report dated 16th February, 2015 itself, the Surveyors have inter alia recorded as follows: "On 8th February, 2012 at about 17 45 hours i.e. after office hours, a massive fire broke out at the factory premises of the insured, situated at village Mundyak, Pargana Manglour, NH - 58, Delhi – Roorkee Highway, Tehsil Roorkee, Dist. Haridwar, UK. The fire had broken out from second floor which was primarily used for storage of raw materials like motor, gearboxes, clutches, bought out plastics, cushion, packing cases, etc." ....... ...... ...... Eight fire tenders were pressed into service. Fire tenders from nearby areas like Muzaffarnagar, Saharanpur and Dehradun were also called to douse the blaze. The fire continued to rage till next day at 1000 hours in part of the factory premises. The incident had taken place a little after office working hours of the factory wherein people heard voices shouting for help. It is said that on hearing the screams, some persons from the lower floors rushed upwards to help the persons trapped on the second floor, but none of them could get out. A search and rescue operation was conducted and total 11 dead bodies were recovered from 2nd floor. In the aforesaid fire incident, the insured's whole factory consisting building, plant, machinery, FFF and various types of stocks were gutted in the fire. Only a small part of rear portion of the building was safe. The head wise details of loss has been incorporated in the schedule attached with this report. The actual circumstances which caused the fire could not be discovered as all the employees where the fire had originated had perished in the fire and nobody was available to tell the real story." The Applicant's business therefore was almost entirely ruined. The head wise details of loss has been incorporated in the schedule attached with this report. The actual circumstances which caused the fire could not be discovered as all the employees where the fire had originated had perished in the fire and nobody was available to tell the real story." The Applicant's business therefore was almost entirely ruined. They therefore immediately needed huge sums to save their existence. The first Surveyor took more than ten months to complete the survey. Interestingly after he completed the survey in December, 2013, a Joint Surveyor was appointed in January, 2014 and their Survey Report took 12 more months to reach the Respondent. In the meantime the Applicant was running from pillar to post pleading with the Respondent to release funds at the earliest. How the Applicant suffered is recorded by them in their letters dated 20th August, 2015 and 14th September, 2015 addressed to the Respondent, to which the Respondent chose not to respond. Admittedly only an amount of Rs. 15 crores was paid to the Applicant on 19th April, 2013 and the balance amount was paid to the Applicant three and half years after the incident. The Applicant has, before as well as immediately after execution of the Discharge Voucher recorded how they were acting under economic duress. Even now the Applicant has not been paid the amount as claimed. In such circumstances, in my view, the Applicant is not required to establish any further that the Discharge Voucher signed by it, was under economic duress. I am therefore more than prima facie convinced that the Applicant has not issued the Discharge Voucher of its own free will and volition, but as recorded by it in its detailed letters addressed to the Respondent, prior and subsequent to the execution of the Discharge Voucher (to which the Respondent has not responded), the same has been executed under duress. The dispute is therefore arbitrable. 9. In the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Boghara Polyfab Private Limited, (2009) 1 SCC 267 the respondent Boghara Polyfab Pvt. Ltd. served a notice on the appellant-National Insurance Company Ltd. inter alia invoking arbitration. The appellant-National insurance Company Ltd. contended that the respondent had unconditionally accepted the claim settlement amount fully and finally and therefore the question of invoking the provision for arbitration did not arise. The appellant-National insurance Company Ltd. contended that the respondent had unconditionally accepted the claim settlement amount fully and finally and therefore the question of invoking the provision for arbitration did not arise. In view thereof, the respondent filed an application under Section 11 of the Act before this Court. The said petition was resisted by the appellant by reiterating that the respondent had accepted the payment of Rs. 2,33,94,964/- in full and final settlement, and therefore could not invoke the arbitration clause. The Learned Chief Justice of this Court after considering the facts, was of the view that there was a serious dispute between the parties as to whether the “discharge voucher” was given voluntarily or under pressure or coercion and held that the said question was required to be settled by the Arbitral Tribunal. The Learned Chief Justice therefore exercising the power under Section 11 of the Act allowed the petition and appointed a sole arbitrator to decide the disputes. The Learned Chief Justice also left open the question as to whether there was any coercion/undue influence in regard to issue of the full and final settlement discharge voucher by the Respondent, and permitted the parties to lead evidence before the arbitrator on that question. The said order was challenged by the Insurer by way of Special Leave Petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Paragraphs 22, 24, 55 and 56 of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court are relevant and are reproduced hereunder: “22. Where the intervention of the court is sought for appointment of an Arbitral Tribunal under section 11, the duty of the Chief Justice or his designate is defined in SBP & Co. [SBP & Co. vs. Patel Engg. Ltd., (2005) 8 SCC 618 ]. This Court identified and segregated the preliminary issues that may arise for consideration in an application under section 11 of the Act into three categories, that is (i) issues which the Chief Justice or his Designate is bound to decide; (ii) issues which he can also decide, that is issues which he may choose to decide; and (iii) issues which should be left to the Arbitral Tribunal to decide. 22.1 The issues (first category) which Chief Justice/his designate will have to decide are: (a) Whether the party making the application has approached the appropriate High Court. 22.1 The issues (first category) which Chief Justice/his designate will have to decide are: (a) Whether the party making the application has approached the appropriate High Court. (b) Whether there is an arbitration agreement and whether the party who has applied under section 11 of the Act, is a party to such an agreement. 22.2 The issues (second category) which the Chief Justice/his designate may choose to decide (or leave them to the decision of the arbitral tribunal) are: (a) Whether the claim is a dead (long barred) claim or a live claim. (b) Whether the parties have concluded the contract/transaction by recording satisfaction of their mutual rights and obligation or by receiving the final payment without objection. 22.3 The issues (third category) which the Chief Justice/his designate should leave exclusively to the arbitral tribunal are : (i) Whether a claim made falls within the arbitration clause (as for example, a matter which is reserved for final decision of a departmental authority and excepted or excluded from arbitration). (ii) Merits or any claim involved in the arbitration.” “24. What is however clear is when a respondent contends that the dispute is not arbitrable on account of discharge of the contract under a settlement agreement or discharge voucher or no-claim certificate, and the claimant contends that it was obtained by fraud, coercion or under influence, the issue will have to be decided either by the Chief Justice/his designate in the proceedings under section 11 of the Act or by the arbitral Tribunal as directed by the order under section 11 of the Act. A claim for arbitration cannot be rejected merely or solely on the ground that a settlement agreement or discharge voucher had been executed by the claimant, if its validity is disputed by the claimant”. 55. In this case the High Court examined the issue and found that prima facie there was no accord and satisfaction or discharge of the contract. It held that the appellant is still entitled to raise this issue before an arbitrator and the arbitrator has to decide it. On the facts and circumstances and the settled position of law referred by us above, we are also prima facie of the view that there is no accord and satisfaction in this case and the dispute is arbitrable. It held that the appellant is still entitled to raise this issue before an arbitrator and the arbitrator has to decide it. On the facts and circumstances and the settled position of law referred by us above, we are also prima facie of the view that there is no accord and satisfaction in this case and the dispute is arbitrable. But it is still open to the appellant to lead evidence before the arbitrator, to establish that there is a valid and binding discharge of the contract by way of accord and satisfaction. 56. We therefore find no reason to interfere with the order of the High court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. We make it clear that nothing stated by the High Court or by us shall be construed as expression of any final opinion on the issue whether there was accord and satisfaction nor as expression of any views on merits of any claim or contentions of the parties”. 10. The ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National insurance Company Ltd. vs. Genus Power Infrastructure Ltd. (supra) is followed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of M/s. Sanjay B. Jawlekar vs. General Manager, South Central Railway. [Decided on 8th April, 2013 in Arbitration Application No. 6 of 2011] In the said case the request for appointment of Arbitrator was rejected by the respondent-Railways on the ground that the applicant has submitted an “unconditional” ‘No Claim Certificate’ before payment of the final bill and release of the security deposit, and it is an excepted matter in terms of clause 63 of GCC and that excepted matters under clause 63 of GCC are excluded from the purview of Arbitration. It was argued on behalf of the applicant that the ‘No Claim Certificate’ was not signed by the applicant. Only the signatures of the applicant were obtained on blank paper under threats by the officers of the respondent. It was alleged by the applicant that the signatures were obtained under financial duress with a knowledge that the applicant is in a financial crisis due to withholding of payment by the office of the respondent. The Learned Judge following the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Com. It was alleged by the applicant that the signatures were obtained under financial duress with a knowledge that the applicant is in a financial crisis due to withholding of payment by the office of the respondent. The Learned Judge following the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Com. Ltd. (supra) reached a prima facie finding that the ‘No Claim Certificate’ issued by the applicant appears to be under financial duress and therefore the said issue, though falling under excepted matters can be referred to arbitration. The learned Judge therefore referred the parties to arbitration with a clarification that the arbitrator will inter alia look into whether the parties have concluded the contract/transaction by recording satisfaction of their mutual right/s or obligation/s, or by receiving final payment without objection. 11. The decision relied upon by the Respondent in the case of New India Assurance Company Ltd. (supra) was a case where there was no protest or demur raised around the time or soon after the letter of subrogation was signed. As set out herein, in the instant case, even at the time of the survey, the Applicant had pointed out that certain deductions were not as per the Terms And Conditions of the Policy, and has, much before the Discharge Voucher was issued by the Respondent to the Applicant, recorded that they are entitled to their 100 per cent claim, and further how they were suffering in view of non-payment of even the approved amount, for a period of more than three years from the date of the incident. The Applicant also recorded immediately within four days of the issuance of the Discharge Voucher that they have no alternative but to sign the same because of their pathetic economic condition which was destroying its future business prospects. Nothing stated by the Applicant in their letters addressed to the Respondent was denied/disputed by the Respondent. As stated in paragraph 8 hereinabove, the Applicant is not required to establish any further that the Discharge Voucher signed by it was under economic duress. 12. Again, the IRDA has by its Circular dated 24th September, 2015, after recording that, "..... Nothing stated by the Applicant in their letters addressed to the Respondent was denied/disputed by the Respondent. As stated in paragraph 8 hereinabove, the Applicant is not required to establish any further that the Discharge Voucher signed by it was under economic duress. 12. Again, the IRDA has by its Circular dated 24th September, 2015, after recording that, "..... it is also necessary to note that insurers shall not use the instrument of discharge voucher as a means of estoppel against the aggrieved policy holders when such policy holder approaches judicial fora", have advised the insurers as under: "Where the liability and quantum of claim under a policy is established, the insurers shall not withhold claim amounts. However, it should be clearly understood that execution of such vouchers does not foreclose the rights of policy holder to seek higher compensation before any judicial fora or any other for a established by law. All insurers are directed to comply with the above instructions." 13. A Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in the case of Worldfa Exports Pvt. Ltd. (supra), after reproducing the entire Circular issued by IRDA has, inter alia, observed as under: "7.3 Despite well settled position of law, insurance companies are indulging in unfair trade practices and therefore, the Court issued notice to the IRDA on 17th August, 2015. 7.4 The IRDA has promptly set the controversy at rest by issuing the circular dated 24th September, 2015. All insurance companies are bound to comply with the circular dated 24th September, 2015 issued by IRDA and shall not insist on discharge voucher for releasing the admitted amount in view of the circular dated 24th September, 2015 issued by IRDA. However, in cases where such discharge voucher has already been taken, the insurance companies shall not raise any objection to the maintainability of the claim on the basis of the discharge voucher." 14. In my view, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Company Ltd. (supra) shall squarely apply to the facts of the present case. The decision of the Delhi High Court with regard to the Circular of IRDA dated 24th September, 2015, also makes it clear that "the Insurance Companies shall not raise any objection to the maintainability of the claim on the basis of the discharge voucher". In view thereof I pass the following order: (i) Dr. The decision of the Delhi High Court with regard to the Circular of IRDA dated 24th September, 2015, also makes it clear that "the Insurance Companies shall not raise any objection to the maintainability of the claim on the basis of the discharge voucher". In view thereof I pass the following order: (i) Dr. S. Radhakrishnan, retired Judge of this Court is appointed as nominee Arbitrator on behalf of the Applicant. (ii) Mr. V.C. Daga, retired Judge of this Court is appointed as the nominee Arbitrator on behalf of the Respondent. (iii) The Learned Arbitrators nominated by this Order shall appoint a Presiding Arbitrator in accordance with the provisions of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. The Arbitration Application is accordingly disposed off.