A discharge voucher signed under coercion is not a bar to arbitration for resolving disputes regarding the validity and amount of claims.

1. By this application filed under S.11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short the said Arbitration Act), the applicant seeks appointment of an arbitrator. The respondents have raised an objection about maintainability of this application on the ground that the applicant had signed the discharge voucher / sheet voluntarily given to the respondents in full and final settlement of all their claims present and / or future arising directly / indirectly in respect of the loss. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this application are as under:

2. On 17th September 2011, the applicant obtained a Standard Fire and Special Peril Policy No. 124500/11/2012/457 from the respondent no. 1 to cover the stocks of goods lying in its three separate godowns located at Thane, Maharashtra vide their three separate endorsements. The total sum insured stood at Rs.13 crores. Clause 13 of the terms and conditions of the said policy contains an arbitration clause. On 25th May 2012, a fire broke out at night on the ground floor of the building occupied by RFCL which fire spread to the first floor of the building and completely engulfed all the three godowns where the stocks of the applicant were stored and resultantly, all the stocks in all the three godowns were completely destroyed.

3. On 26th May 2012, the applicant informed the respondents about the fire and consequential loss. The respondents appointed M/s. C.P. Mehta & Co. as Surveyors and Assessors to survey the loss suffered by the applicant and to report on the claim that was to be lodged upon the respondents by the applicant. The applicant lodged a total and final claim upon the respondents for an amount of Rs.14,88,14,327/- comprising Rs.13,52,85,752/- towards the cost of the materials totally destroyed and Rs.1,35,28,575/- as overheads. It is the case of the applicant that the applicant also submitted comprehensive documentary evidence and detailed work sheets in support of the said claim.

4. On 14th August 2012, after visiting the factory of the applicant and the godowns and after scrutinizing the materials submitted by the applicant in support of their claim, the Surveyor appointed by the respondents filed a Final Survey Report with the respondents recommending that the claim be settled for an amount of Rs.12,93,26,704.98 and that after deducting an amount of 5% towards compulsory deduction for excess, a net amount of Rs.12,28,60,369/- be paid over to the applicant. It is the case of the applicant that a copy of the survey report was not supplied to the applicant, either by the respondents or by the Surveyor.

5. It is the case of the applicant that on 20th September 2012, the applicant addressed a letter to the Chairman of the respondent no. 1 apprising him of the financial distress that the applicant had faced with and requested for settlement of the claim on priority basis. The applicant informed him that the applicant had obtained a temporary loan of Rs.10 crores from Union Bank of India for a period of 3 months on a very high rate of interest which was due for repayment in the month of September 2012 and it would be a gre