JUDGMENT : Bela M. Trivedi, J. The present arbitration petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") seeking appointment of an Arbitrator in view of Clause 13 of the agreement (Annexure-16). The said clause 13 reads as under:- "13. 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 decision 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." 2. It appears that the petitioner was engaged with manufacturing of plastic & rubber footwear for which he had taken standard fire and special perils policies from the respondents as per details given in the application. On 24.02.2008, the fire took place in the factory of the petitioner and the petitioner suffered heavy loss. Since the petitioner had taken two policies one of the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited i.e. respondent No. 1 and other from Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. i.e. respondent No. 2, both the said companies had jointly appointed the surveyors, who had submitted the report assessing the loss suffered by the petitioner. On the basis of the said survey report, the petitioner was paid interim payments and thereafter by way of settlement of loss, the petitioner was offered a total sum of Rs.3,19,17,872/- by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 besides interim payments. The petitioner was directed to submit undertaking and discharge vouchers in full and final settlement for releasing the said payments. 3. According to the petitioner, the said amount offered by the respondents was very less as compared to the loss suffered by the petitioner, and therefore the petitioner kept on writing letters/mails requesting the respondents to consider the higher claim made by the petitioner. 3. According to the petitioner, the said amount offered by the respondents was very less as compared to the loss suffered by the petitioner, and therefore the petitioner kept on writing letters/mails requesting the respondents to consider the higher claim made by the petitioner. Thereafter due to the compelling circumstances and on the insistence of the respondents, the petitioner had to sign and execute the discharge vouchers on 27.01.2010 and 12.02.2010 in full and final settlement. It is further case of the petitioner that since the respondents did not fully settle the claim of the petitioner, the petitioner had given notice to the respondents invoking arbitration clause. However, the Arbitrator having not been appointed, the present petition has been filed. 4. The respondent No. 1 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. has resisted the petition by filing the reply, contending interalia that the petitioner having been paid the amount assessed by the surveyor, and the petitioner having signed the discharge voucher without any protest, the said amount was required to be treated as full and final settlement towards the petitioners' claim. It is also contended that there was no pressure or coercion from the said respondent and therefore the petitioner cannot pray for appointment of Arbitrator. Nobody appears for the respondent No. 2, though duly served. 5. Learned counsel Mr. Sunil Nath for the petitioner relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd v. Boghara Polyfab Private Limited, (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 267, submitted that the Arbitrator was required to be appointed even in cases where the vouchers were signed by the claimant towards the receipt of full and final settlement, if the Court was satisfied that the said payment was received by the claimant under the pressure and coercion. He also relied upon the various correspondences ensued between the parties to show that the petitioner had raised the protest against the said amount offered by the respondents towards the loss suffered by the petitioner. However, the learned counsel Mr. Virendra Agrawal for the respondent No. 1 relying upon the very same judgment, submitted that the petitioner had failed to prima facie show any coercion or undue pressure having been exercised by the respondent No. 1. However, the learned counsel Mr. Virendra Agrawal for the respondent No. 1 relying upon the very same judgment, submitted that the petitioner had failed to prima facie show any coercion or undue pressure having been exercised by the respondent No. 1. According to him, the correspondence on record shows that the same was ensued between the petitioner and the respondent No. 2, and not with the respondent No. 1. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, and to the documents on record, it appears that though the petitioner had not raised any protest while accepting the amount offered by the respondents jointly towards the loss suffered by the petitioner, on the basis of the assessment made by the surveyors of the respondents, the petitioner had immediately written to the respondents that the said amount assessed by the surveyors was much less than the loss suffered by the petitioner. The petitioner had also categorically stated in the notice dated 20.03.2010 (Annexure- 13) that the petitioner had received the amount offered by the respondents and signed the discharge vouchers towards the full and final settlement of the claims, under compelling circumstances and at the insistence of the respondents. Whether the said amount was received by the petitioner under the compelling circumstances or at the insistence of the respondents, would be a matter of evidence which could be decided by the Arbitrator as a preliminary issue. If the Arbitrator comes to a conclusion that such discharge vouchers were signed under compulsion, coercion or duress, the Arbitrator would proceed further with the claim made by the petitioner, otherwise reject the claim. At this juncture, a very pertinent observations made by the Apex Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd v. Boghara Polyfab Private Limited (supra) relied upon by the learned counsels, are required to be reproduced which read as under:- "21. It is thus clear that when a contract contains an arbitration clause and any dispute in respect of the said contract is referred to arbitration without the intervention of the court, the Arbitral Tribunal can decide the following questions affecting its jurisdiction: (a) whether there is an arbitration agreement; (b) whether the arbitration agreement is valid; (c) whether the contract in which the arbitration clause is found is null and void and if so whether the invalidity extends to the Arbitration clause also. It follows, therefore, that if the respondent before the Arbitral Tribunal contends that the contract has been discharged by reason of the claimant accepting payment made by the respondent in full and final settlement, and if the claimant counters it by contending that the discharge voucher was extracted from him by practising fraud, undue influence, or coercion, the arbitral tribunal will have to decide whether the discharge of contract was vitiated by any circumstance which rendered the discharge voidable at the instance of the claimant. If the arbitral tribunal comes to the conclusion that there was a valid discharge by voluntary execution of a discharge voucher, it will refuse to examine the claim on merits, and reject the claim as not maintainable. On the other hand, if the arbitral tribunal comes to the conclusion that such discharge of contract was vitiated by any circumstance which rendered it void, it will ignore the same and proceed to decide the claim on merits. 52. Some illustrations (not exhaustive) as to when claims are arbitrable and when they are not, when discharge of contract by accord and satisfaction are disputed, to round up the discussion on this subject are: (i) A claim is referred to a conciliation or a pre-litigation Lok Adalat. The parties negotiate and arrive at a settlement. The terms of settlement are drawn up and signed by both the parties and attested by the Conciliator or the members of the Lok Adalat. After settlement by way of accord and satisfaction, there can be no reference to arbitration. (ii) A claimant makes several claims. The admitted or undisputed claims are paid. Thereafter negotiations are held for settlement of the disputed claims resulting in an agreement in writing settling all the pending claims and disputes. On such settlement, the amount agreed is paid and the contractor also issues a discharge voucher/no claim certificate/full and final receipt. After the contract is discharged by such accord and satisfaction, neither the contract nor any dispute survives for consideration. There cannot be any reference of any dispute to arbitration thereafter. (iii) A contractor executes the work and claims payment of say Rupees Ten Lakhs as due in terms of the contract. After the contract is discharged by such accord and satisfaction, neither the contract nor any dispute survives for consideration. There cannot be any reference of any dispute to arbitration thereafter. (iii) A contractor executes the work and claims payment of say Rupees Ten Lakhs as due in terms of the contract. The employer admits the claim only for Rupees six lakhs and informs the contractor either in writing or orally that unless the contractor gives a discharge voucher in the prescribed format acknowledging receipt of Rupees Six Lakhs in full and final satisfaction of the contract, payment of the admitted amount will not be released. The contractor who is hard pressed for funds and keen to get the admitted amount released, signs on the dotted line either in a printed form or otherwise, stating that the amount is received in full and final settlement. In such a case, the discharge is under economic duress on account of coercion employed by the employer. Obviously, the discharge voucher cannot be considered to be voluntary or as having resulted in discharge of the contract by accord and satisfaction. It will not be a bar to arbitration. (iv) An insured makes a claim for loss suffered. The claim is neither admitted nor rejected. But the insured is informed during discussions that unless the claimant gives a full and final voucher for a specified amount (far lesser than the amount claimed by the insured), the entire claim will be rejected. Being in financial difficulties, the claimant agrees to the demand and issues an undated discharge voucher in full and final settlement. Only a few days thereafter, the admitted amount mentioned in the voucher is paid. The accord and satisfaction in such a case is not voluntary but under duress, compulsion and coercion. The coercion is subtle, but very much real. The `accord' is not by free consent. The arbitration agreement can thus be invoked to refer the disputes to arbitration. (v) A claimant makes a claim for a huge sum, by way of damages. The respondent disputes the claim. The claimant who is keen to have a settlement and avoid litigation, voluntarily reduces the claim and requests for settlement. The respondent agrees and settles the claim and obtains a full and final discharge voucher. (v) A claimant makes a claim for a huge sum, by way of damages. The respondent disputes the claim. The claimant who is keen to have a settlement and avoid litigation, voluntarily reduces the claim and requests for settlement. The respondent agrees and settles the claim and obtains a full and final discharge voucher. Here even if the claimant might have agreed for settlement due to financial compulsions and commercial pressure or economic duress, the decision was his free choice. There was no threat, coercion or compulsion by the respondent. Therefore, the accord and satisfaction is binding and valid and there cannot be any subsequent claim or reference to arbitration." 7. In view of the afore stated position, the present arbitration petition deserves to be allowed, and is accordingly allowed. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Bhagwati (Retd.) R/o L-44, Sukh Shanti, Income Tax Colony, Durgapura, Jaipur is hereby appointed as the arbitrator to resolve the disputes between the parties. The cost of arbitration proceedings and the arbitration fees shall be as per the Rajasthan High Court Arbitration Manual. A copy of this order be sent to Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Bhagwati (Retd.)