Sarat Chandra Mohapatra, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. On basis of an agreement No. 6/S.E./79 -80 dated 26th October, 1979, respondent entered into an agreement with appellant for excavation of Khara Power Channel from Km. 8 to Km. 9.8 and for construction of Drainage crossing at Chhoti Lui at Km. 9.2 and Ban Lui at Km. 9.6 On basis of agreement the work commenced on 1.12.1979. In respect of this work respondent raised dispute that it is to get some amount towards work done and interest. This dispute was referred to an Arbitrator as per the written clauses in the agreement. Arbitrator gave a reasoned award and allowed various claims, which was the grievance of appellant for which it filed the objection under Section 30 and 33 of the Act before the court. Trial court on consideration of objection held that the same is not sustainable and accordingly, made the award rule of court. Refusal to entertain objection of appellant before trial court is its grievance in this appeal.
(2.) ARBITRATOR awarded compensation in respect of claims No. 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 12 and 16. Mr. Bisaria learned standing counsel submitted that Arbitrator having misread the clauses of the written agreement, trial court ought to have interfered with the award and set aside the same. Since heavy amount of award is involved, we allowed Mr. Bisaria to place before us the claim statement, statement in defence, agreement clauses and the award. On consideration of these materials, we are satisfied that Arbitrator has given cogent reason for accepting part claims as indicated in the award itself. In the decision reported in Bijendra Nath Srivastava (dead) through L.Rs. v. Mayank Srivastava and others. : A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 2562, it has been observed that if the arbitrator or umpire chooses to give reasons in support of his decision it would be open to the court to set aside the award if it finds that an error of law has been committed by the arbitrator or umpire on the basis of the recording of such reasons. The reasonableness of the reasons given by the arbitrator cannot, however, be challenged. The arbitrator is the sole judge of the quality as well as the quantity of the evidence and it will not be for the court to take upon itself the task of being a Judge of the evidence before the arbitrator. The court should approach an award with a desire to support it if that is reasonably possible, rather than to destroy it by calling it illegal.
(3.) THIS principle has been laid down by the Supreme Court keeping earlier decisions in view. All claims in this case relate to interpretation of clauses in the agreement. In some of the claims arbitrator says that the work was extra and would not be covered under the tender rate. There is no dispute that where the works were found to be extra not covered under the tender items arbitrator can award amounts at higher rate. When the arbitrator, who is Engineer himself on interpretation of the agreement and tender items, considered the nature of the work and found that there is extra work not covered under the tender item for which it granted rate as it found to be reasonable, it is not possible for the court to interfere with the same, since reasons appear to be reasonable. If the rate would be unreasonable, the question might have been different. We find that the arbitrator has given cogent reason both in quality as well as quantity of the work done and the amount receivable for those quantities of work. He visited the spot and found that the claim of the State Government that the work indicated to have been done is not correct in view of the report of Geological Survey of India, cannot be said to be unreasonable. Therefore, consideration of various claims as the appellate authority not being permissible keeping in view of the principle laid down by Supreme Court, we have no jurisdiction to interfere with the award.;