H. N. Seth, J. - (1.) ON 22.7.1978 Messr. Duli Chand Omraolal, a registered partnership firm which carries on business at Bans Mandi Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed an application under section 20 of the Arbitra tion Act praying that the agreement entered into between it and the Jupiter Insurance General Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Insurance Company) as contained in the Fire Policy No. L-774431 dated 15.3.1967, be ordered to be filed and the dispute between the parties may be referred to arbitration in accordance therewith. By an order dated 17.2.75, the First Additional Civil Judge, Kanpur accepted the prayer made by the plaintiff and made a direction that the aforesaid agreement be filed and the dispute between the parties be referred to arbitration. Being agrrieved, the Insurance Company has come up in appeal before us. Briefly stated the facts of the case as stated by the plaintiff were that respondent No. I Messr. Duli Chand Umrao lal which is a registered partner ship firm was at one time the Managing Agent of one Messrs Umrao Industrial Corporation Private Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). The said Corporation had an account with the Punjab National Bank, Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) but did not have any sanctioned limit of advances of its own. The plaintiff, at all material time, had a sanctioned limit of advances with the Bank. In the year 1962, the plaintiff gave up the Manag ing Agency of the Corporation. As the Corporation did not have any limit for advances from the Bank, its Board of Directors authorised the plaintiff to pledge the stock of the Corporation with its bankers as its own and to obtain advances for purposes of the -Corporation on the basis thereof. It was also plaintiff that the interest and inciagreed between the Corporation and the dental charges on such advances were to be borne by the Corporation. Accordingly, the Corporation transferred certain stock in favour of the plaintiff which was pledged with the Bank for obtaining ad vances for purposes of the Corporation. The plaintiff and the Bank further agreed that the pledged stock which were lying in Bank godown, Railway siding platform and in open compound of the Corporation, should be insured against the risk of fire and lightning with an Insurance Company. The plaintiff as mortgagor and the Bank as mortgagees, therefore, insured the pledged stock with the Insurance Company under Fire insurance Policy No. L-774431 for a sum of Rupees five lacs. Aforesaid policy was to remain effective between the period 15.3.67 and 15.3.68. The plaintiff had also insured the said stock with Messrs. General Assurance Society Ltd. Under Fire Policy No. 2135361 and had informed the Insurance Company about it. ON 4th of June, 1967, there was a fire in the Bank godown in which the plaintiff suffered a loss of Rs. 17,903/-. Again, there was another fire on Railway siding in which the stock lying on the Railway platform valued at 1,23,334/- was destroyed. In due course, information about the two fire accidents and the loss suilered by the plaintiff was conveyed to the Insurance Company which after making necessary investigation accepted that the total loss suffered by the plaintiff in the two accidents came to Rs. 1,46,237/-and that in respect thereof the Insurance Company was liable to pay Rs. 60,688/35. Subsequently, by means of a letter received by the plaintiff on 28.4.68, the Insurance Company wrongly repudiated its liability to pay the aforesaid amount. Rejection of plaintiff's claim by the Insurance Company was impro per and this led to a dispute between the parties. Condition No. 18 of the Insurance Policy contained an arbitration clause according to which, if any difference arose between the parties with regard to the amount of any loss, or damage, such difference was independently of any other question, to be referred for decision to an arbitrator to be appointed in writing by the parties. As a dispute had arisen and the Insurance Company did not agree to appoint an arbitrator, the plaintiff moved the present application for relief under sec tion 20 of the Arbitration Act. The Insurance Company contested the application and claimed that the plaintiff had no insurable interest in the goods insured. According to it, the plaintiff had wrongly held itself out as the mortgagor and the Bank as mort gagee and had obtained the Policy by making false and fraudulent represen tations. The contract of Insurance was accordingly void and could not be enforced against the Insurance Company, the plaintiff had suffered the loss due to its own negligence and that it was not entitled to recover the same under the Insurance Policy. There was no agreement between the parties for referring a dispute of the nature involved in the case to an arbitrator and that it had rightly repudiated its liability. According to the Insurance Company as there was no valid contract of insurance and as it had repudiated its total liability to pay any amount to the plaintiff under the Insurance Policy the application filed under section 20 of the Arbitration Act was not main tainable. The Court before which the application under section 20 of the Arbitra tion Act had been filed, found that the plaintiff had insurable interest in the insured goods and that the Insurance Company had failed to prove that the Insurance Policy had been obtained by practising fraud or mis-representation. The Insurance Policy which was quite valid contained an arbitration clause and that the dispute between the parties could, under that clause be referred to arbitration. It also held that in the circumstances of the case, liability of the insurance company did not cease under clause 19 of the conditions attached to the Insurance Policy and in any case, the question whether the plaintiff's claim had become barred under clause 19 aforesaid was a matter which had to be dealt with by the arbitrator appointed under the arbitration clause. In the result, the court allowed the application filed by the plaintiff and directed that the agreement for arbitration as contained in the Insurance Policy be filed and that the dispute between the parties be referred to arbitra tion in accordance with the agreement. Being aggrieved, the Insurance Company has come up in appeal before us. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company pressed the appeal on following two grounds only:- 1. As the dispute between the parties related to the basic liability of the Insurance Company for the loss said to have been suffered by the insured, it was not a dispute with regard to the amount of any loss or damage in respect of the insured goods. Accordingly, it was not a dispute of the nature which, under clause 18 of the Conditions of the Insurance Policy, could be referred to arbitration. In fact there is no clause in the conditions of Policy which provides for reference of a dispute, of the nature involved in this case, to arbitration; and
(2.) THAT in any case, the application for reference made by the plaintiff on 22.7.68 after one year of the fire which admittedly took place on 4.6.77, and 8.6.77, was not maintainable inasmuch as clause 19 of the Condition of the Insurance Policy laid down that in no case whatsoever, shall the Insurance Company be liable for any loss or damage after the expiration of 12 months from the happening of the loss or damage unless the claim was the subject of pending action or arbitra tion. Before a party to an agreement can, under section 20 of the Arbitration Act ask for filing of the agreement and for reference of a dispute to arbitra tion, it has to show not only that there is an agreement between the parties for resolving certain dispute by arbitration but also that the dispute between them is of the nature which under the agreement is to be decided by arbitra tion. The contract entered into by the parties may lead to various types of disputes, but the agreement may contemplate adjudication of only some of such disputes by arbitration. In such a case, the parties cannot claim that the type of dispute which the agreement does not stipulate should be referred to arbitrator should also be adjudicated upon by arbitration. Relevant portion of clause 18 of the Conditions of the Policy which in the instant case contain the arbitration agreement reads thus:- "If any difference arises as to the amount of any loss or damage such difference shall independently of all other questions be referred to the decision of an arbitrator to be appointed in writing by the parties in difference, or...............and it is hereby expressly stipulated and declared that it shall be a condition precedent to any right of action or suit upon this policy that the award by such arbitrator, or Umpire of the amount of the loss or damage if disputed shall be first obtained." It is clear that under the aforesaid clause, a dispute with regard to the amount of any loss or damage alone can be referred to arbitration. This is made absolutely clear by the last sentence in this clause which stipulates that in a case where apart from the dispute with regard to amount of any loss or damage other disputes also arise between the parties, it is obligatory upon the parties first to get their dispute with regard to loss or damage resolved by arbitration before pursuing any action or suit for the resolution of other disputes. A difference between the parties regarding the amount of any loss or damage clearly implies a claim by one party that it has suffered loss upto a particular extent, and a counter-assertion by the other party either that the loss suffered by the claimant is less or that it is nil. However, where a party repudiates its liability and asserts that for some reason, other than that con nected with the extent of loss suffered by the insured, it is not liable to make any payment, the dispute between the parties arising as a result of such repudiation certainly cannot be said to be a dispute regarding the amount of loss or damage. In the instant case, on plaintiff's own showing the Insurance Company had accepted that as a result of the two fires, total loss suffered by the insured was to the extent of Rs. 1,46,237/- out of which the liability of the Insurance Company was Rs. 60,688/35 paise. However, the Insurance Company had wrongly repudiated its liability to pay the amount of the loss agreed to by it on untenable grounds. The plaintiff did not, at any stage, claim that it was entitled to recover any loss or damage from the Insurance Company in excess of Rs. 60,688/35 Paise accepted by the Insurance Company. Thus according to plaintiff's own case, there was no dispute between the parties with regard to the amount of damage or loss suffered by it. The dispute between the parties related to other matter. Merely, because in some cases where the insured claims a particular amount by way of loss or damage and the Insu rance Company repudiates its liability by asserting that the loss suffered by the claimant is nil, it may be held that a dispute with regard to the amount of loss or damage as contemplated by clause 18 is involved, it does not mean that in all oases where the Insurance Company repudiates its total liability, it becomes a dispute with regard to the amount of loss or damage as envisaged by that clause. We find that in this case, 'on plaintiff's own case, even though the Insurance Company had accepted that the amount of loss suffered by the plaintiff was to the tune of Rs. 1,46,237/- it had repudi ated its liability to pay the amount on wholly unjustified grounds. It is obvious that the Insurance Company was repudiating its liabilities not on the ground that the amount of loss claimed to have been suffered by the plaintiff' was something different from Rs. 1,46, 237/- but on various other grounds e. g. that as the plaintiff did not have any insurable interest in the insured goods he was not entitled to recover the loss suffered by and from the Insurance Company, or that liability of the insurance company had ceased as stipulated by clause 19 becomes plaintiff did not initiate any action within twelve months of the fire or that the agreement in question had been obtained by fraud and mis-representation and was as such not binding on the Insurance Company. The dispute between the parties, being in respect of matters other than the amount of loss or damage suffered by the plaintiff, it was not a dispute of the nature which, under clause 18 of the Conditions of the Insurance Policy could be referred to arbitration. Learned counsel for the plaintiff' has not been able to point out any other clause in the Insurance Policy which stipu lates reference of the dispute of the nature involved in this case to arbitration. As in our opinion there exists no agreement between the parties for referring a dispute of the nature involved in the present case to arbitration, plaintiff's application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act is liable to be dismissed, on this very ground. In the circumstances, it is not necessary for us to discuss as to whether the order under appeal is also vitiated for the reason that as the plaintiff did not make the application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act within twelve months of the accident, the liability of the Insurance Company had, under clause 19 of the Conditions attached to the policy ceased and that there was no point in referring the dispute to arbitration. In the result, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The order of the Civil Judge dated 17 2.75 directing the filing of the arbitration agreement and refe rring the dispute between the parties to arbitration is set aside. Application for relief under section 20 of the Arbitration Act filed by plaintiff on 22.7.68 is dismissed. In the circumstances, we direct the parties to bear their own costs throughout.;