IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR AC No. 49 of 2023 (VISHNU COATERS THRO. AUTHORISED SIGNATORY SHYAM ADVANI VISHNU Vs ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY )

Dated : 13-02-2026 Shri Choudhary Mayank Singh - Advocate with Shri S.M. Mishra -

Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri Harjas Singh Chhabra - Advocate for respondent No.1.

The present has been filed under section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 as amended by the Act of 2015 for appointment of arbitrator to decide the disputes arising between the petitioner who is the insured and the respondent who is the insurer. The matter relates to fire claim being raised by the insured which has been permitted in part by the insurer and the insured is aggrieved by the action of the insurance company in allowing the fire accident claim in part. The policy agreement in question has clause 13 which is the arbitration clause in the following terms:-

"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 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 conduct conducted under and by the provisions of the Arbitration and conciliation Act 1996"

2. In pursuance to a notice Annexure A-25 issued on 03.04.20263 by the insured to the insurer, the insurer has replied Vide Annexure A-26 dated 15.05.2023 that the claim as lodged by the insured with the insurer has already been settled in full and final settlement and a discharge voucher has been executed and amount of Rs. 82.67 lakh has been paid in full and final settlement of fire accident claim and discharge voucher has been executed by the applicant. Therefore it is contended that now there is no arbitrable dispute existing between the parties.

3. The counsel for the applicant on other hand had vehemently argued that executing a discharge voucher does not lead to the arbitration clause being obliterated and it would be for the arbitrator to consider the effect of the discharge voucher being executed by the applicant. It is contended that initially the insurance company had proposed a discharge voucher vide Annexure A-10 to the tune of Rs.1.38 crores which was on 07.10.2021 but later on the insurance company offered an amount of Rs.82.67 lakh and the applicant being under financial distress had no option but to sign the said discharge voucher and had to accept the said amount of Rs.82.67 Lakh which was being offered to the applicant because the applicant had no choice in the matter and if he had not signed the discharge voucher then even this much amount would not have been paid to him. Therefore, it is contended that the discharge voucher is signed under duress and compulsion and it does not amount to giving away the right to demand the actual amount.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that it is fit case where there should be pre-reference examination of the claim of the present applicant because no arbitrable dispute exists in the matter in view of the discharge voucher executed by the applicant. The learned counsel for the respondent has placed vehement reliance on judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in NTPC Limited Vs. SPML Infra Limited reported in (2023) 9 SCC 385 to contend that the Court may for legitimate reasons to prevent wastage of public and private resources, can exercise judicial discretion to conduct a summary prima facie review that would assist the arbitration procedure and would not amount to usurping the jurisdiction of Arbitral Tribunal. It is contended that if the court be