239 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ****

ARB-538-2024 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 23.09.2025 ****

M/s Fairways Trading Co.

..... Petitioner Versus Chairman-cum-Managing Director, National Insurance Co. Ltd. and others ..... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI Present: Mr. Aashish Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. S.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the respondent.

****

JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J . (ORAL)

1. The present petition has been filed under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) praying for appointment of an independent Sole Arbitrator to adjudicate the disputes which have arisen between the parties.

2. Mr. Aashish Chopra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner assisted by Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate has submitted that a contract was entered into between the parties by taking three insurance policies from the respondent wherein there was an arbitration clause i.e. Clause 13 which provided that in case any dispute or difference arises pertaining to the quantum to be paid under the policy then such difference is to be sent to the Sole Arbitrator to be appointed in writing given by the parties and in case they cannot agree upon a single arbitrator, then a panel of three arbitrators will be appointed. He further submitted that in this way, a procedure was prescribed in the aforesaid arbitration clause and the petitioner had raised a claim with regard to the quantum of insurance amount vide letter dated 22.07.2024 (Annexure P-6) wherein although the date has not been mentioned but the said letter was sent through email vide Annexure P-7. Thereafter, vide Annexure P-8, a notice dated 10.08.2024 under Section 21 of the Act was sent to the respondent for invoking the arbitration clause, but the respondent failed to respond to the same and in this way, the petitioner has filed the present application for appointment of Sole Arbitrator under Section 11(6) of the Act. He also submitted that the aforesaid arbitration clause is a valid and existing clause and the claim is pertaining to the quantum of insurance amount and therefore, the dispute in the present case is arbitrable. He further submitted that in similar circumstances, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.04.2024 in ARB-78-2023 titled as “M/s Adhunik Packagers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd.” has appointed a Sole Arbitrator and prayed that in the present case as well, Sole Arbitrator may be appointed.

3. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Sidhu, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the existence of the arbitration clause as aforesaid and also there is no dispute that the petitioner is claiming the difference in the quantum of insurance amount. He however submitted that at the time of granting the amount of claim already given to the petitioner, he had given a consent letter and discharge voucher that this is a full and final settlement and therefore, he cannot seek the appointment of an Arbitrator.

4. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties.

5. The aforesaid Clause 13 of the Arbitration Agreement is reproduced 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, 1