ORDER : Alok Sharma, J. 1. The applicant-company (hereinafter 'applicant') seeks appointment of an arbitrator in terms of Clause 13 of the Standard Fire Special Perils (Single Block) Policy issued by the non-applicant-insurance company (hereinafter 'non-applicant'). 2. The case of the applicant is that the policy in issue was issued for its factory premises by the non-applicant on 1.6.2016 and was valid upto 31.5.2017. On 13.12.2016 at 03.00 AM a fire broke out at the factory premises of the applicant which were insured. Information of the said incident was given within four hours to the non-applicant for sending its surveyor. E-mail at 9.00 AM on 13.12.2016 was also sent. Photographs of the factory premises where the fire broke out were taken and videography done in proof of the damage caused by the fire. All information as required was furnished to the surveyor appointed by the non-applicant. The claim for reasons of damage caused by the fire was laid only an extent of 14% of the stock then lying in the factory when the fire broke out and 86% of the stock to which no substantial damage was caused was not included in the claim. 3. It has been submitted that the surveyor appointed by the non-applicant did not discharge his obligation to submit a proper and correct report of the damage caused by the fire in the insured factory premises. In the circumstances a claim by the applicant for a sum of Rs. 43,00,500.68/- as loss recoverable under the insurance policy by the non-applicant was lodged but it remained unaddressed despite several reminders/representations. In the circumstances a claim by the applicant for a sum of Rs. 43,00,500.68/- as loss recoverable under the insurance policy by the non-applicant was lodged but it remained unaddressed despite several reminders/representations. In the circumstances the applicant invoked Clause 13 of the Standard Fire and Special Perils (Single Block) Policy effective 1.6.2016 to 31.5.2017 which reads as under: Clause 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. It is clearly agreed and understood that no difference or dispute shall be referable to arbitration as hereinbefore provided, in Company has disputed or not accepted liability under or in respect of this policy. (underlining mine) It is here by expressly stipulated and declared that it shall be a condition precedent to any right of action or suit upon this policy that the award by such arbitrator/arbitrators of the amount of loss or damage shall be first obtained. 4. The applicant states that notice dated 25.8.2018 was dispatched through speed post on 27.09.2018 to the non-applicant proposing the name of Mr. Ashwani Chobisa, Advocate as the arbitrator for resolving the disputes/differences with regard to the insurance claim of the applicant for reasons of damage/loss suffered by the fire in the insured factory premises. It did not elicit any response. In the circumstances this application under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter 'the Act of 1996') has been filed praying that this court appoint an impartial and independent sole arbitrator for addressing the claim/disputes of the applicant under the insurance policy in issue and resolve the disputes in regard thereto arising from the failure of the non-applicant to honor the claim under the insurance policy despite notices in regard thereto. 5. Mr. 5. Mr. D.D. Bansal appearing for the non-applicant has drawn the attention of this court to part II of Clause 13 of the Standard Fire and Special Perils (Single Block) Policy effective 1.6.2016 up to 31.5.2017 as issued to the applicant. He submitted that there under it is very clear that unless the non-applicant admits to a claim under the policy and the dispute thereon thereafter remains with regard to the quantum payable, no arbitrator would be appointed. Mr. D.D. Bansal submitted that in the instant case the claim of the applicant under the policy in issue has been rejected vide order dated 8.3.2018 and conveyed to the applicant on 9.3.2018 by speed post. Both documents have been filed with the reply to the application as Annexure R/10 and R/11. He submitted that yet suppressing the aforesaid facts this application under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996 was mischievously filed on 13.12.2018. On these facts, Mr. D.D. Bansal referred to the judgment of the Apex court in the case of Oriental Insurance Company Limited v. M/s. Narbheram Power and Steel Private Limited, Civil Appeal No. 2268/2018 decided on 02.05.2018 where in Para 7 the Apex Court while dealing with an identical arbitration clause held that the parties to the insurance policy were bound by its plain language i.e. rejection of the insurance claim was not an arbitrable dispute and held that the court could not transplant any equity to the same by rewriting it. It was further held that the principle of unconscionability of the terms and conditions for arbitration founded in lack of bargaining power of the insured could not arise in respect of a contract entered into between the parties. In para 26 of its opinion in the aforesaid judgment the Apex Court interpreting Part II of Clause 13 as before it, which is verbatim and hence identical to Part II of the Clause 13 of the insurance policy in the instant case, held that it unequivocally spelt out that the insurance company and the insured had agreed and understood that no difference and disputes would be referable to arbitration if the company had not accepted its liability for the claims made under the insurance policy. The Apex court held that hence where an insurance company denied its liability altogether in respect of a claim by the insured under its insurance policy and the dispute was not about a disputation pertaining to quantum, the arbitration Clause i.e. 13--Part II would not be operable. 6. A perusal of the order dated 8.3.2018 by the Administrative Officer of the non-applicant, annexed with the reply to the application, indicates that the claim of the applicant under the policy in issue containing Clause 13 reproduced earlier in the judgment was rejected on the ground that the insured had not submitted the requisite papers and documents in support of its claim. On the matter coming up before this court on 10.5.2019 counsel for the non-applicant company had submitted that a more definitive and not an implied view on the question as to whether the claimant's right to claim for compensation under Standard Fire and Special Perils (Single Block) Policy issued by the non-applicant had been accepted or repudiated will be taken. Thereafter vide letter dated 20.05.2019 sent by registered post to the applicant the authorized officer of the non-applicant has stated that the claim in issue having been reprocessed, it was evident that the insured had not provided a copy of the stock statement despite reminder dated 29.1.2018 and therefore in the absence of the vital documents not supplied its claim was found to be untenable and hence repudiated by the company simultaneously absolving itself from all liabilities in regard thereto. 7. The aforesaid facts make it clear that the claim of the applicant under the policy in issue has been roundedly rejected and repudiated for disclosed reasons. 8. In this view of the matter, the judgment of the Apex Court in Oriental Insurance Company Limited (supra) attracts on all fours to the case under consideration as Part II of the Clause 13 in the instant case is identical to the one before the Apex Court for its consideration. 9. I therefore would hold that the contingency for appointment of an arbitrator under Part II Clause 13 of the insurance policy issued by the non-applicant to the applicant has not occurred--the insurance claim being repudiated/rejected altogether. There is no dispute as to quantum of compensation. Only such a dispute was arbitrable in terms of the arbitration clause in the insurance policy. There is no dispute as to quantum of compensation. Only such a dispute was arbitrable in terms of the arbitration clause in the insurance policy. Hence there is no force in the application for appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act of 1996 as prayed for. It is accordingly dismissed.