VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. OMP 319/2003 is the objection petition filed by M/s Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. against the award dated 9.5.2003 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal consisting of 3 Arbitrators. There are two awards, one by the majority of Hon’ble Mr. R.S.Pathak (Retired Chief Justice of India) and Justice J.K.Mehra (Retired Judge of this Court) and a separate award has been rendered by the third Arbitrator Sh. Vishnu Mehra, Advocate and which also decides all issues in accordance with the majority award except that in respect of the issue with regard to the survey report, the matter has been remitted for preparing a fresh survey report.

2. The facts of the case are that the respondent/non-objector company sought an insurance policy for its stocks which were to be in different locations i.e. at different ports/godowns. The policy was also required keeping in view the total overall value limit of the policy, although there would be changes in the value of stocks and sub-limits in different locations from time to time. The business of the respondent was, inter alia, of export of its goods (mostly rice) and as per the stand of the respondent, as orders were executed and procurements made the value of stocks in the different godowns in the country fluctuated frequently. According to the case of the respondent, it was difficult to keep track of these fluctuations and hence it could not take separate policies for each godown and, therefore, a single policy was required to meet its insurance requirement.

3. The insurance policy was given by the objector to the respondent initially for a sum of Rs.20 crores under its cover note dated 7.8.1997. This figure of Rs.20 crores was enhanced to Rs. 25 crores on the endorsement in the cover note dated 12.8.1997. The insurance policy in this regard was issued on 14.8.1997. This court is, therefore, concerned with this policy, and the endorsements. Further enhancements were made to the value of the policy. First one was by 8 crores on 24.11.1997 and the second one by Rs.5 crores on 26.3.1998 bringing the total value of the policy for the stocks covered to Rs. 38 crores w.e.f 26.3.1998. The policy in question is a Fire Declaration Policy. This policy required the respondent to make a declaration on a monthly basis for the value of stocks at each location. Such declarations were duly made by the respondents on a monthly basis to the objector and the last relevant declaration which is material, is the one dated 5.6.1998 because the incident/event for which the insurance claim was made is dated 9.6.1998 when the Kandla Port was hit by a cyclone causing damage to the stocks of rice of the respondent. The damage was surveyed by the surveyor of the objector company. The respondent made a claim of Rs.11.3 crores which after removal of partially damaged stocks was reduced to Rs.7.2 crores. As against this claim of Rs.7.2 crores, the objector company accepted a claim of Rs. 4,30,91,103/- only and disallowed the balance amount on the ground that stocks were under insured.

4. What is relevant is that the objector company first made an on account ad hoc payment of Rs. 2,49,36,994/- out of the total claim approved of Rs. 4,30,91,103/-. As per the respondent the objector insurance company asked the claimant to approve this figure of Rs.4,30,91,103/- in full and final settlement before releasing the balance. The contention of the non-objector is that disputing this position it had already written a letter to the objector on 16.12.1998 and the date of the signing of the full and final satisfaction voucher was subsequently done on 17.12.1998. Also, the respondent company on the next day thereafter vide its letter dated 18.12.1998, immediately after signing of the alleged full and final settlement voucher, wrote that the voucher had been got signed under economic duress because the objector insurance company refused to release even the admitted amount unless the full and final settlement vouc