- (1.) THE basis of the award covered by the Arbitration act, 1940, passed by a retired engineer is assailed primarily on the ground of the mental capacity of the arbitrator. The contract related to the construction to the manufacture, supply, installation and commissioning of a dust control system at the coal handling plant of the respondent at the haldia dock complex. The reference ran into 102 sittings and the controversy that the petitioner refers to arose at and immediately after the 101 sitting.
(2.) THE minutes of the 101st sitting record that representatives of the respondent in the reference (the petitioner herein) were present before the arbitrator at 5. 10 p. m. and a representative of the claimant arrived shortly thereafter but Counsel for the claimant did not appear till 5. 55 p. m. by which time Counsel for the respondent in the reference had already left. The minutes thereafter record that the respondent in the reference had sought leave to deal with the arguments made on behalf of the claimant in its rejoinder. In connection with such request, the arbitrator directed as follows: "i had a check up of my health on 27. 09. 97 last and the cardiologist advised to continue indoors though he permitted moving about in the ground floor level and did not permit to climb up staricases. As such it will not be possible for me to continue with this Arbitration case indefinitely. As a result the date fixed on 5. 11. 97 will stand at 5. 30 p. m. in my residence. I further understand that during elucidations on different issues you have lengthily spoken about all these matters and regarding your claim also you had already clarified your points. As such I am unable to understand what further clarifications you have to make in regard to your claim against the Claimant. However, as earnestly desire, I have fixed up the date and time as above for your placing the counter replies on the basis of gist of arguments submitted by the Claimant's Counsel. The period of Arbitration hearing is for 2 (two) hours and hence it is expected that you have enough time for clarifications during these two hours. On the last date of hearing because of your leaving early no action could be undertaken though the others arrived little late because of traffic jams on the roads. Hence it is again confirmed that the date of next hearing as fixed on 05. 11. 97 will stand and in case it is difficult for you to attend the same you are permitted to submit your written replies to reach my hand in time. "
(3.) THE petitioner next refers to a letter issued by the arbitrator on or about October 21, 1997 which needs to be seen in its entirety: "in connection with above arbitration case for which I have been appointed the Sole Arbitrator as per Registered letter No. M (Pande)/108des/b/3673 dated 15. 11. 1993 of Shri N. C. Karmakar, Manager (Pande), CPT, HDC I have to disturb you a bit for the facts stated below. The Arbitration case was commenced on 15. 12. 93 after duly receiving the said appointment order. Since then the hearings continued on different dates as per programme given in Annex-"a". At present the arbitration matter is at the closing stage except for another hearing to be held on 5. 11. 97 at 5. 30 p. m. in my residence at the above address. I am enclosing the copy of the minutes of 101st hearing which will give a clear picture of how the matter was continued for months together and years together as well. In this case, however, cause of delay in road traffic the claimant's Counsel could not come early and as such the respondent along with their Counsel was permitted by me to leave the arbitration proceeding after about an hour's time. The claimant's Counsel as well as my stenographer could come and join by 6 p. m. In fact, I had never in the past arbitrated any case for such a long period. May either be the claim was too heavy or the respondent and the claimant had no past experience of the work and i. e. why both were solely dependent on their consultant CMPDIL for their decision after supervision. As a result for a very very long continued works I had developed cardiac problem. Due to this prolonged period of arbitration serious mental agony was turmoiled in my mind for non-completion of the arbitration within a reasonable time, ultimately causing the cardiac attack with me on the night of 5. 8. 97 for which the undersigned had to rush to Advanced Medicare and Research Institution Immediately as advised by the Consultant Cardiologist for early recovery. I had a thinking in my mind that if I suffer for long then the case may not be completed by me. Moreover, my tension, anxiety and irritation made me down and I had fallen sick. For my treatment including cost of medicines total cost amounted to Rs. 20,177/ -. I have a mind to request both the parties respondent and claimant to bear the proportionate cost of my immediate treatment by paying 1/3 of the amount as stated above. (Copy of details enclosed for ready reference ). This is my request, now, the decision is at your end. I hope for a favourable consideration from your end. With very best of respects and wishes. ";