1. The petitioner is seeking appointment of an arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

2. Factual Matrix

2.1. The petitioner insured its factory at 449-450, HSIIDC, EPIP, Kundli, Sonepat, Haryana - 131001 with the respondent under Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy No.222700/11/11/11/00000916 for the period 28th February, 2012 to 27th February, 2013.

2.2. On 25th October, 2012, a fire broke out in the insured premises whereupon the petitioner lodged a claim with the respondent. The respondent appointed M/s Cunningham Lindsey International Pvt. Ltd. as surveyor to assess the petitioner’s loss on 27th October, 2012.

In February, 2013, the respondent appointed second surveyor, M/s Jain Ambavat & Associates.

2.3. On 17th November, 2014, the surveyor assessed the petitioner’s loss at Rs.6,04,36,887/- and sought the concurrence of the petitioner whereupon the petitioner gave its concurrence vide letter dated 17th November, 2014 and executed the undated discharge voucher. The petitioner claims that the respondent forced it to give the concurrence. According to the petitioner, the respondent refused to release the assessed amount unless the concurrence was given and the petitioner, who was suffering because of the inordinate delay of two years, gave the concurrence under duress and coercion. The petitioner, in the letter dated 17th November, 2014, clearly protested that the concurrence was without prejudice to its rights under the policy. The petitioner also reserved the right to invoke the arbitration in terms of the policy. The relevant portion of the letter dated 17th November, 2014 is reproduced hereunder:

“2. We hereby give concurrence to the net assessment of Rs.6,04,36,887 (Rupees Six Crore Four Lacs Thirty Six Thousand Eight Hundred & Eighty Seven Only) including re-weighment expenses amounting Rs.8,01,988, under the above policy of United India Insurance Co. Limited.

3. Please note that the concurrence is without prejudice to our/ insurers rights and subject to various terms and conditions of the policy.” (Emphasis supplied)

2.4. On 7th July, 2015, i.e. eight months after the aforesaid concurrence, the respondent released a sum of Rs. 5,62,32,959/- to the petitioner.

2.5. On 10th July, 2015, the petitioner protested that the receipt of Rs. 5,62,32,959/- against their claim of Rs.12,69,51,063/- was under duress and protest. The petitioner invoked the arbitration clause of the policy with respect to the balance claim amount. The relevant portion of the letter dated 10th July, 2015 is reproduced hereunder:

“In the process of settlement of claim, an inordinate delay has been caused and our financial interest has been harmed. In view of difficulties, delay and lack of transparency in sharing the documents and information by the insurance company and persons appointed by insurance company, we have been denied an actual amount of indemnity under the contract of insurance under this policy, since we claimed an amount of Rs.126951063.00 and substantiated the same whereas we have been given Rs.56232959.00 only.

We hereby invoke the provisions of arbitration clause of the policy and seek appointment of an arbitrator which should be fair and experienced to grant us the justice.

We await your advice on the above subject. It is needless to say that we have accepted the amount of claim paid to us on 07.07.2015 under stress, duress and protest, which should not be treated as full and final settlement acceptable to us.”

2.6. Vide reply dated 03rd August, 2015, the respondent raised an objection to the appointment of an arbitrator on the ground that the payment of Rs. 5,62,32,959/- has been made in full and final settlement to the petitioner and, therefore, no arbitral disputes survive in the matter.

3. Submissions of the petitioner

3.1. The insurance sector in India is regulated by Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA) an autonomous body constituted under IRDA Act, 1999. IRDA