The Court's power under Section 11(6) is limited to testing the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. The issues pertaining to the quantum of claim and the maintainability of the petitioner's claims are to be decided by the Arbitral Tribunal under the kompetenz-kompetenz principle.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. The present petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") in terms of the Arbitration Clause incorporated in the Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy bearing No. 0401001117P110869962 valid from the period 1st November 2017 to 31st October 2018.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. Petitioner is a private limited company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 whereas the Respondent is a Public Sector Enterprise providing general insurance services.

3. On 13th June, 2018, a fire broke out in the premises of the Petitioner due to an electric short circuit, which caused considerable loss and damage to the Petitioner, which was claimed as Rs.11,47,67,511/-. Accordingly, the Respondent appointed a surveyor to assess the damage caused and the claim applicable.

4. On 15th June, 2018, the Surveyor began the process of survey of claim and visited the Petitioner's premises during which the Surveyor and the Respondent sought various documents/information from the Petitioner to substantiate the Claim.

5. On 9th July, 2018, a second surveyor was appointed by the Respondent to assess the Petitioner's Claim. The second surveyor rendered his findings in a report dated 4th March, 2019. A Consent Letter dated 23rd January, 2020 is also on record wherein the Petitioner had agreed to accept their loss being assessed at Rs.9,81,00,000/-. The final survey report was submitted on 10th May, 2020. The claim amount of Rs.8,38,10,920/- was released by the Respondent on 15th September, 2022.

6. Aggrieved by the deficiency in the Claim granted, the Petitioner invoked arbitration in terms of clause 13 contained in the Policy, sent an arbitration notice dated 20th September, 2022, calling upon the Respondent to suggest names of the arbitrator and to appoint them by mutual consent, and to resolve the dispute pertaining to the Claim.

7. Respondent sent a reply dated 26th October, 2022 denying the existence of any arbitrable dispute between the parties and refused to appoint an arbitrator. Aggrieved by the same, the Petitioner has approached this Court praying for the appointment of a sole arbitrator.

SUBMISSIONS

(ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER)

8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Clause 13 of the Policy Agreement clearly provides for arbitration by a sole arbitrator in cases where any dispute or difference arise between the parties as to the quantum to be paid under the policy.

9. It is submitted on behalf of the Petitioner that on 13th June, 2018, a fire broke out in the premises of the Petitioner due to an electric short circuit, which caused grave loss to the Petitioner and the accident was reported to the Respondent on the same day claiming a loss of Rs.11,47,67,511/-.

10. It is submitted that the Respondent appointed a surveyor to assess the damage and claim on 14th June, 2018. The surveyor began the process of determining the claim amount and visited the concerned premises to conduct the survey on 15th June, 2018. During the said survey, the surveyor and the respondent sought various documents/information from the petitioner, all of which were duly provided by the petitioner.

11. It has been further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that on 9th July, 2018, the respondent appointed a second surveyor to assess the petitioner's claim. The second surveyor continued the survey and requisitioned documents/information from the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that appointment of the surveyor who began a parallel survey is in contravention to the IRDA regulations.

12. It has been further submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the second surveyor rendered his findings in a report dated 4th March, 2019, almost 9 months after the above-mentioned incident of fire and that a copy of the report was never supplied to the petitioner.

13. Learned counsel for the petition