JUDGMENT AND ORDER : M.R. Shah, J. All these applications are preferred by the respective petitioner seeking appointment of the Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties, more particularly, between the petitioners and respondent No.1 National Insurance Company Limited arising out of the respective insurance policies and for resolution of the disputes regarding quantum of insurance claim under the Fire Policy issued by respondent No.1 Insurance Company. 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts stated in Arbitration Petition No.1/2018 are narrated as in other applications, except the change in the Fire Policy number, other things are identical. 3. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has obtained Fire Policy from respondent No.1 - Insurance Company and the sum insured was Rs.27,50,000/- for Net House Structure and Green White Net. The validity of the insurance policy was between 22.12.2015 to 21.12.2016. 3.1 It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that on 24.09.2016, the areas of District Sabarkantha, namely, Khedbrahma, Vadali, Idar and Malpur, were badly affected due to cyclone and heavy rain. Due to the same, the Net House Structure insured under the above-mentioned policy was badly damaged. According to the petitioner, the repair cost of the damaged Net House was estimated at Rs.31,95,056/-. That the loss/damage to the Net House was reported to the Insurance Company and in turn, the respondent Insurance Company appointed on Shri Mohit J. Patel, Surveyor and Loss Assessors to survey and asses the loss/damage to the Net House Structure and Net. The Surveyor visited the affected site on 28.09.2016. The Surveyor submitted his Report on 04.03.2017. That the part claim was paid without the consent of the petitioner and the respondent remitted Rs.4,44,250/- on 10.03.2017 in the petitioner's Bank Account with Bank of Baroda, Vadali Branch, i.e. respondent No.2, through NEFT/RTGS without the knowledge of the petitioner. 3.2 It is further case of the petitioner that the petitioner has sustained huge loss. The petitioner also got the property surveyed through an independent Surveyor Shri D.T.Patel. The petitioner also informed the respondent about dissatisfaction of the quantum. 3.2 It is further case of the petitioner that the petitioner has sustained huge loss. The petitioner also got the property surveyed through an independent Surveyor Shri D.T.Patel. The petitioner also informed the respondent about dissatisfaction of the quantum. That thereafter, on receipt of the Survey/Technical Report dated 25.09.2017 of the independent Surveyor Shri D.T.Patel, an IRDA approved Surveyor, the petitioner wrote a letter dated 06.10.2017, inter alia demanding Rs.18,71,669/-, being the difference amount of loss suffered and the amount of claim deposited in the Bank account by respondent No.1 Insurance Company. 3.3 That thereafter, as nothing was done, the petitioner served on respondent No.1 Insurance Company, a legal Notice dated 01.11.2017. Respondent No.1 replied to the said Notice vide its letter dated 09.11.2017 whereby respondent No.1 denied any further liability to pay any amount towards loss/damages relying upon the Agreed Bank Clause in Policy which provided that "the Receipts of the bank shall be complete discharge of the company therefore and shall be binding on all parties insured hereunder", and as the Insurance Company has received from the Bank, duly signed Claim Disbursement Voucher and the payment was also made accordingly, thereby fully discharging the Insurance Company from any further liability. Therefore, the Insurance Company has not agreed for any arbitration. Hence, the petitioner has preferred the present petition seeking appointment of Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties with respect to the quantum of amount of loss as per Clause-13 of the Insurance Policy. 4. Shri R.V.Sakaria, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has heavily relied upon Clause-13 of the Insurance Police by which any dispute or difference as to the quantum to be paid under the Policy shall be referred to arbitration and it is required to be resolved through arbitration. 5. In response to the notice issued by this Court, Shri Maulik J. Shelat, learned advocate, has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1 Insurance Company. He has vehemently submitted that as such, respondent No.2 Bank had issued the Discharge Voucher and therefore, as per the Agreed Bank Clause in the Policy which provides that the receipts of the Bank shall be complete discharge of the Company therefore, there is no liability of Insurance Company to pay any further amount. He has vehemently submitted that as such, respondent No.2 Bank had issued the Discharge Voucher and therefore, as per the Agreed Bank Clause in the Policy which provides that the receipts of the Bank shall be complete discharge of the Company therefore, there is no liability of Insurance Company to pay any further amount. 5.1 It is submitted by Shri Shelat, learned advocate appearing for the Insurance Company that as per the Agreed Bank Clause, once the Bank has issued receipt of full and final settlement of claim in question, then the same is complete discharge of Insurance Policy and shall be binding on all parties, including the insured. It is submitted that therefore, when respondent No.1 Insurance Company has fully settled the claim in question, there is no arbitral dispute existing, as alleged, between the parties. 5.2 Making the above submissions, and relying upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Genus Power Infrastructure Limited, (2015) 2 SCC 424 , it is requested to dismiss the present application/applications. 6. In rejoinder, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently submitted that as such, respondent No.2 Bank is working as an Insurance Agent for respondent No.1 Insurance Company and therefore, after invocation of proposal form, respondent No.2 Bank had signed the proposal form in capacity of Insurance Agent. It is submitted that the proposal form clearly reveals that the petitioner's name is appearing in the column of insured and the proposal form is signed by the representative of the petitioner. It is submitted that in the Policy, the name of the insured is mentioned as "Bhanuben Pravinbhai Patel" - petitioner herein. It is submitted that as such, the copy of the Policy schedule was never supplied to the petitioner earlier. It is submitted that in any case, what will be the effect of the Discharge Voucher issued by the Bank of Baroda is a question which is required to be considered by the learned Arbitrator. It is submitted that considering Sections 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2015, what is required to be considered at this stage is whether a contract contains the arbitration clause or not and all other disputes/differences are to be left to be decided by the Arbitrator. It is submitted that considering Sections 11(6A) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 2015, what is required to be considered at this stage is whether a contract contains the arbitration clause or not and all other disputes/differences are to be left to be decided by the Arbitrator. 6.1 Now so far as reliance placed upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Genus Power Infrastructure Limited is concerned, it is submitted by learned advocate appearing for the petitioner that on facts, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. It is submitted that in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in fact, the claimant, after receiving payment under the Insurance Policy from the Insurance Company and signing letter of subrogation in favour of the Insurance Company in full and final settlement of its claim under the Policy, sought appointment of Arbitrator on the ground that he signed said letter due to extreme financial difficulties and under duress, coercion and undue influence exercised by the Insurance Company. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, on facts, did not accept the above by observing that the plea raised by the insured is bereft of any details and particulars and is a bald assertion. It is submitted that in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the insured never made any protest or demur while letter of subrogation was signed. Therefore, it is requested to allow the present petition and refer the dispute between the parties with respect to the quantum of amount of loss under the Fire Insurance Policy by Arbitral Tribunal. 7. Heard Shri R.V.Sakaria, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Shri Maulik J. Shelat, learned advocate appearing for the Insurance Company. 8. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that respondent No.1 Insurance Company has issued a Fire Insurance Policy in favour of the petitioner which contains arbitration clause. Clause-13 reads as under: "13. 8. At the outset, it is required to be noted and it is not in dispute that respondent No.1 Insurance Company has issued a Fire Insurance Policy in favour of the petitioner which contains arbitration clause. Clause-13 reads as under: "13. If any dispute or difference shall arise as to the quantum to be paid under the 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." 9. Therefore, considering the aforesaid, in case of any dispute or difference as to the quantum to be paid under the Policy, such dispute is required to be referred to the decision of an Arbitrator. In the present case, as such, the dispute has arisen as to the quantum to be paid under the Insurance Policy. Therefore, as such, the dispute/different as to the quantum to be paid under the Fire Policy is required to be referred to for the decision of a Sole Arbitrator/Arbitrators. 10. However, it is the case on behalf of the petitioner that as the Bank of Baroda, respondent No.2 herein issued/signed the Discharge Voucher in favour of respondent No.1 Insurance Company, as per the Agreed Bank Clause, once the Bank has issued receipt of full and final settlement of claim, the same is complete discharge of the Insurance Company and shall be binding on all the parties including the insured and therefore, thereafter there is no liability to the Insurance Company and therefore, there is no arbitral dispute. 11. 11. However, it is required to be noted that the said dispute, more particularly, with respect to the applicability of Agreed Bank Clause and/or what will be the effect of the Discharge Voucher issued by respondent No.2 Bank of Baroda, who as such acted as an insurance agent of respondent No.1 - Insurance Company and was entitled to only the commission on the insurance premium from respondent No.1 Insurance Company, all questions are required to be considered in arbitration proceedings. 12. At this stage, Section 11-(6A) of the Arbitration Act is required to be referred to : "11. Appointment of Arbitrators: ... (6A) The Supreme Court or, as the case may be, the High Court, while considering any application under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5) or subsection (6), shall, notwithstanding any judgment, decree or order of any Court, confine to the examination of the existence of any arbitration agreement." 13. Considering the above provision of law, at the time of deciding application under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, the jurisdiction of the Court is confined to the examination of the existence of an arbitration agreement only. All other disputes/differences shall be left to be decided by the Arbitrator. In the present case as such, the Insurance Policy contains the arbitration clause and there exists the arbitration agreement, as referred to hereinabove. 14. Now so far as reliance placed upon decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Genus Power Infrastructure Limited is concerned, on considering the said decision, I am of the opinion that on facts, the said decision shall not be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. In the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the claimant, after receiving payment under the Insurance Policy from the Insurance Company and signing letter of subrogation in favour of the Insurance Company in full and final settlement of its claim under the Policy, sought appointment of Arbitrator on the ground that he had signed said letter due to extreme financial difficulties and under duress, coercion and undue influence exercised by the Insurance Company. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, on facts, did not accept the above contention by observing that the plea raised by the insured is bereft of any details and particulars and is a bald assertion. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, on facts, did not accept the above contention by observing that the plea raised by the insured is bereft of any details and particulars and is a bald assertion. Further, in the case before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the insured never made any protest or demur while letter of subrogation was signed. 15. Under the circumstances, the objections raised on behalf of respondent No.1 Insurance Company stand overruled and now the question which would remain would be to name the Arbitrator/Arbitrators. FURTHER ORDER: Learned advocates appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as respondent No.1 Insurance Company have jointly suggested the name of Shri J.C.Upadhyaya, a former Judge of this Court, to act as a Sole Arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties arising out of the respective Insurance Policies. Under the circumstances, Stand Over to 04.05.2018. In the meanwhile, either of the learned advocate may get the necessary declaration from the proposed Arbitrator, as required under the provisions of the Arbitration Act, 2015, as amended.