1 S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.1764/2006 The United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. v. M/s V.D. Agrotech Ltd., Sriganganagar Date of Judgment :: 11th March, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Manoj Bhandari, for the appellants. Ms. Rekha Borana, for the respondent. .... The appellant, by this appeal, is assailing validity, propriety and correctness of the judgment and order passed by learned District Judge, Sriganganagar in Misc. Case No.215/2004, dated 30.8.2006. By the order aforesaid learned District Judge rejected an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1996”) preferred by the appellant to challenge the award dated 18.9.2003 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal. In brief, facts of the case are that this Court by an order dated 2.5.2002 appointed a sole arbitrator to resolve the dispute between the parties arising out of three insurance policies. By the three insurance policies the appellants insured M/s V.D. Agrotech Ltd., Sriganganagar, a company incorporated 2 in the year 1993. The fire policy No.140800/11/591/99 was relating to stock of all kinds of oil seeds/oil cakes/khal/bardana/iron tins/all kinds of edible oil/PVC tins/all kinds of pet bottles/multi layer plastic films/PP gaps/labels/cartons/PP sheets/HM&PP bags/printing stickers/tapes/adhesive/all kinds of oil filled in surface tanks and/or in tanks in the mill i.e. processing plant; the fire policy No.140800/11/593/99 was to cover plant and machinery of the insured oil mill; and the fire policy No.140800/11/594/99 was on coverage of building above plinth level of the insured oil mill. The total sum insured was for Rs.1,40,83,000/- for the term commencing from 11.10.1999 to 10.10.2000. On December 21, 1999 a major fire took place at the factory godown of the firm aforesaid causing huge loss. The respondent claimants submitted their claim on January 6, 2000, estimating the loss in a tune of Rs.2,03,61,609.00. An interim survey report was submitted by the surveyor on 17.2.2000 estimating the loss in a tune of Rs.1,64,25,000/-. The final survey report was submitted on 12.4.2000 making assessment of the total loss in a tune of Rs.1,88,32,164/-. The amount assessed was paid to the petitioner company on 10.11.2000 through a cheque and a receipt of the same was obtained with a remark of one of the Directors in the terms “received from United India Insurance Company Limited the aforesaid 3 sum in full and final discharge of claims upon them”. On 27.11.2000 the claimants being not satisfied with the quantum of amount paid to them, intimated the Insurance Company for making a reference to an arbitrator for decision relating to the quantum of claim. The insurance company being not agreeable for the same, an application was preferred under Section 11 of the Act of 1996 by the claimant and that came to be disposed of by order dated 2.5.2002 appointing the sole arbitrator. The arbitrator by the award dated 18.9.2003 did not choose to make any change in the quantum of claim, however, allowed interest upon the claim from the date of submission of the surveyor report i.e. 18.3.2000 to 10.11.2000, that is for the term commencing after a month from the date of determination of compensation to the date on which the actual payment was made. Learned Arbitrator also allowed interest upon the amount of Rs.39,71,863/- for the period commencing after a month from the final determination of compensation to the date of final payment. Being aggrieved by the award, an application as per provisions of Section 34 of the Act of 1996 was preferred and that came to be rejected vide judgment dated 30.8.2006. While assailing validity of the judgment aforesaid, the only contention of counsel for the appellants is that once the claimants accepted full and final liability on 10.11.2000, it was not open for 4 the arbitrator to proceed with the dispute on merits. It is emphasised by learned counsel that as a matter of fact by accepting the claim and by giving a receipt in the terms “received from United India Insurance Company Limited the aforesaid sum in full and final discharge of claims upon them”, no dispute was surviving for adjudication. I do not find any substance in the argument advanced. This Court in the case of Tolani Fabricators v. Rajasthan Urban Infrastructure Development Project, Jaipur, AIR 2006 Rajasthan 237, held that even after full and final settlement of claim the matter is still arbitrable and it is for the arbitrator to resolve as to whether any amount is due to be paid and how far the claim is tenable. In the instant matter, this Court after accepting an application under Section 11 of the Act of 1996 appointed an arbitrator and the arbitrator adjudicated the dispute on merits and declared the claimant entitled for interest on the claim awarded. As a matter of fact the arbitrator awarded interest only for a period subsequent to determination and computation of claim by the surveyor of the insurance company itself. There was no reason for causing any delay after determination of compensation for not 5 making payment of claim. No error, in any manner, was committed by the sole arbitrator while awarding interest in the terms above and as such learned District Judge rightly rejected the application under Section 34 of the Act of 1996. This appeal, being having no merit, is hereby dismissed. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.