JUDGMENT : This is an application under Sections 11(5) and (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short, Act of 1996) for appointment of Arbitrator. 2. Heard Mr. Ankit Singhal, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant as well as Mr. Raj Awasthi, learned counsel, appearing for the respondent. 3. The applicant is a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 and is engaged in generation of power. The applicant had an ‘Industrial All Risk Policy’ bearing Policy No. 311800/11/2019/322 insuring the plant of the applicant from 17.07.2018 to midnight of 16.07.2019 with the respondent, on a premium of Rs. 2,87,004/- per year. 4. On 17.12.2018, a fire incident broke out in the plant of the applicant and in connection with the loss that had occasioned, the applicant had submitted its claim under the insurance policy in question amounting to Rs. 41,88,980/-. The incident was reported to the respondent on the date of incident itself and pursuant thereto, a Surveyor, namely, Gautam Basu was deputed by the respondent to conduct inspection of the plant. The survey report was submitted on 05.02.2019 and according to the survey report, the net loss assessed was Rs. 4,82,164/-. It was also opined by the Surveyor that as the net assessed loss is less than the policy excess, the insurer does not have any liability. On the basis of the report of the Surveyor, a letter dated 26.12.2019 was issued to the applicant by the Senior Divisional Manager of the respondent, which is as follows: “By Registered post 26th December, 2019 M/s. Balaji Power Ltd. Gram-Belsonda, Murhena Road, Distt. - Mahasamund Raipur 493445 Chhattisgarh. 3 Dear Sir, Re: Claim under Policy No. 311800/11/ 2019/322 Claim No. 311800/11/2019/000051 A/c. Balaji Power Ltd. dt. of loss 17/12/2018 With the reference to above claim, this is to state that, we had deputed Mr. Gautam Basu as surveyor for the above loss. The surveyor has submitted his report. The Surveyor Report mentions the Net Assessed Loss at Rs. 4,82,164/- after deduction of Salvage which is less than the minimum Policy Excess of Rs. 5 Lacs. Hence, the net liability comes for the Insurer amounts to NIL. The assessment sheet is attached herewith for reference. Based on the assessment, the claim is treated as “No Claim” and the file is treated as closed. Thanking you Sincerely yours, Sd/- Illegible Sr. Divisional Manager” 5. 5 Lacs. Hence, the net liability comes for the Insurer amounts to NIL. The assessment sheet is attached herewith for reference. Based on the assessment, the claim is treated as “No Claim” and the file is treated as closed. Thanking you Sincerely yours, Sd/- Illegible Sr. Divisional Manager” 5. The applicant sent a legal notice to the respondent on 11.06.2020 in terms of Clause No. 12 of the Industrial All Risk Insurance Policy, which provided for invoking arbitration clause and suggested the name of an Arbitrator from the side of the applicant. Request was made to the respondent to nominate a second Arbitrator within 30 days. In response, a letter dated 13.07.2020 declining the request of the applicant was issued by the respondent. The applicant was further requested to withdraw the notice dated 11.06.2020 requesting for nomination of Arbitrator. 6. Mr. Singhal submits that in terms of Clause 12 of the Industrial All Risk Insurance Policy, if any difference arises as to the quantum to be paid under the policy, such difference shall independently of all other questions be referred to the decision of an arbitrator in the manner as provided therein. However, if the liability is not admitted, the dispute shall not be referable to arbitration. 7. Since the applicant had claimed an amount of Rs. 41,88,980/- and the respondent, relying upon the report of the Surveyor, came to the conclusion that there was loss of only Rs. 4,82,164/-, it is a dispute of quantum to be paid and therefore, refusal to appoint arbitrator by the respondent is not tenable in law and therefore, this Court may appoint arbitrator. 8. Relying upon the reply affidavit filed, Mr. Awasthi submits that while the Surveyor had assessed the amount of net loss to the tune of Rs. 4,82,164/-, an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- is to be deducted towards policy excess on each and every claim as per the insurance policy condition and therefore, it is a case of denial of liability and not related to the quantum of amount claimed, as contended by the applicant. 9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 10. Clause 12 of the policy condition reads as under: “12. 9. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record. 10. Clause 12 of the policy condition reads as under: “12. If any 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 an arbitrator to be appointed in writing by the parties in difference, or if they cannot agree upon a single arbitrator, to the decision of two dis-interested persons as arbitrators of whom one shall be appointed in writing by each of the parties within two calendar months after having been required so to do in writing by the other party in accordance with the provision of the Arbitration Act, 1940, as amended from time to time and for the time being in force. In case either party shall refuse or fail to appoint arbitrator within two calendar months after receipt of notice in writing requiring an appointment, the other party shall be at liberty to appoint sole arbitrator and in case of disagreement between the arbitrators, the difference shall be referred to the decision of an umpire who shall have been appointed by them in writing before entering on the reference and who shall sit with the arbitrators and preside at their meetings. It is clearly agreed and understood that no difference or dispute shall be referable to arbitration as hereinbefore provided, if the Company has disputed or not accepted liability under or in respect of this policy.” (emphasis supplied by Court) 11. The question that arises for consideration is whether the liability is admitted by the respondent and as to whether the dispute in the instant case relates to quantum. 12. At the cost of repetition, it is to be noted that though the claim of the applicant was Rs. 41,88,980/-, the same was assessed by the Surveyor at Rs. 4,82,164/-. Thus, there is a dispute with regard to the quantum. Perusal of the letter dated 26.12.2019 would go to show that it has been observed that liability for the insurer amounts to ‘NIL’ in view of the Net Assessed Loss at Rs. 4,82,164/- after deduction of salvage amount. 41,88,980/-, the same was assessed by the Surveyor at Rs. 4,82,164/-. Thus, there is a dispute with regard to the quantum. Perusal of the letter dated 26.12.2019 would go to show that it has been observed that liability for the insurer amounts to ‘NIL’ in view of the Net Assessed Loss at Rs. 4,82,164/- after deduction of salvage amount. In other words, liability is admitted but only on account of the fact that the Surveyor had assessed Net Assessed Loss as Rs.4,82,164/-, the liability has come down to ‘NIL’, as in terms of the insurance policy conditions, an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- is to be deducted towards policy excess on each and every claim. 13. In view of the above factual scenario, whether the respondent No.1 would have to pay any amount or not to the applicant would be dependent on the quantum. The quantum or loss assessed is disputed by the applicant. 14. In that view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the dispute raised by the applicant is a dispute which is referrable to arbitration and as the respondent has not appointed an arbitrator and on the other hand, had asked the applicant to withdraw the letter requesting appointment of arbitrator, I deem it appropriate to appoint Mr. N.D.Tigala, a retired District Judge, to act as the Sole Arbitrator between the parties. 15. The Registry is directed to communicate this order to Mr. N.D.Tigala in the proper address. 16. The arbitration application, accordingly, stands allowed. No order as to costs.