Bela M. Trivedi, J.

The present arbitration petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 11 (6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") seeking appointment of an Arbitrator in view of Clause 13 of the agreement (Annexure-16). The said clause 13 reads as under:-

"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."

2. It appears that the petitioner was engaged with manufacturing of plastic & rubber footwear for which he had taken standard fire and special perils policies from the respondents as per details given in the application. On 24.02.2008, the fire took place in the factory of the petitioner and the petitioner suffered heavy loss. Since the petitioner had taken two policies one of the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited i.e. respondent No. 1 and other from Cholamandlam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. i.e. respondent No. 2, both the said companies had jointly appointed the surveyors, who had submitted the report assessing the loss suffered by the petitioner. On the basis of the said survey report, the petitioner was paid interim payments and thereafter by way of settlement of loss, the petitioner was offered a total sum of Rs.3,19,17,872/- by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 besides interim payments. The petitioner was directed to submit undertaking and discharge vouchers in full and final settlement for releasing the said payments.

3. According to the petitioner, the said amount offered by the respondents was very less as compared to the loss suffered by the petitioner, and therefore the petitioner kept on writing letters/mails requesting the respondents to consider the higher claim made by the petitioner. Thereafter due to the compelling circumstances and on the insistence of the respondents, the petitioner had to sign and execute the discharge vouchers on 27.01.2010 and 12.02.2010 in full and final settlement. It is further case of the petitioner that since the respondents did not fully settle the claim of the petitioner, the petitioner had given notice to the respondents invoking arbitration clause. However, the Arbitrator having not been appointed, the present petition has been filed.

4. The respondent No. 1 Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. has resisted the petition by filing the reply, contending interalia that the petitioner having been paid the amount assessed by the surveyor, and the petitioner having signed the discharge voucher without any protest, the said amount was required to be treated as full and final settlement towards the petitioners' claim. It is also contended that there was no pressure or coercion from the said respondent and therefore the petitioner cannot pray for appointment of Arbitrator. Nobody appears for the respondent No. 2, though duly served.

5. Learned counsel Mr. Sunil Nath for the petitioner relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Ltd v. Boghara Polyfab Private Limited, (2009) 1 Supreme Court Cases 267, submitted that the Arbitrator was required to be appointed even in cases where the vouchers were signed by the claimant towards the receipt of full and final settlement, if the Court was satisfied that the said payment was received by the claimant under the pressure and coercion. He also relied upon the variou