- (1.) The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 06.02.2016 passed by District Judge, Jodhpur City in Civil Misc. Case no. 35AA/2010 whereby the application preferred by the respondent Kanhaiyalal under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996 was allowed and the award disallowing certain claims passed by the Arbitrator dated 17.08.2009 was quashed and set aside.
(2.) Briefly stated facts of the case are that M/s Rajendra Petrol Service was given a contract by appellants on 12.05.2003 for transportation of petroleum products. A dispute arose with respect to the rate of transportation of petroleum products from the point where the truck was loaded. The claimant raised the issue that HPCL did not pay him the transportation charges as per the rates applicable at loading/dispatch point on 23.09.2004, they suffered a loss of Rs. 11,30,754/-, therefore, the same was asked to be paid by the Petroleum Corporation. Since, there was an Arbitration Clause in the agreement entered into between the claimant and respondent, the matter was referred to the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator after taking into consideration the relevant pleadings, partly allowed the claims after adjudicating the dispute vide its award dated 14.08.2009 in the following terms :- "In terms of the provisions made in the agreement, I decide the claims of the claimants as under :- (a) The claim of Rs. 95,723.76 demanded for transporting 440 KL product from Jamnagar to Jodhpur depot is not maintainable since the tank trucks were sent by Jodhpur to Jamnagar loading point for bridging the product and the trucks were not shifted or attached to Jamnagar dispatch point. As such rate applicable at Jodhpur depot shall apply. Therefore, this claim is not tenable and is accordingly rejected. (b) Claim of Rs.9,54,690/- for transportation of 9420 KL petroleum product from Bhatinda to Hanumangarh is not maintainable because tank trucks were attached to and sent by Hanumangarh depot to Bhatinda dispatch point for bridging product and were not shifted or attached to Bhatinda dispatch point. As such claimant was entitled to prevailing L-1 rates at Hanumangarh depot where tankers were attached. But he has been paid at L-l rates applicable to Jodhpur depot, which is not correct. Therefore, contractor is entitled to get payment of Rs.2,09,239/-. Being differential amount between Hanumangarh and Jodhpur rates. This claim is accordingly partly allowed for Rs.2,09,239/- only. (c) For the reasons given in para (b) on page No. 8 the claim of Rs.11,368.56 for transportation of 40 Kilo Litre petroleum products from Jamnagar dispatch point to Jaipur depot is not maintainable since tank truck was sent by Jaipur depot to Jamnagar for bridging. As such Jaiput L-l rate shall be applicable (which is lower than the Jodhpur rate) where tank truck was attached. Payment has been paid at rates applicable to Jodhpur depot which is not correct. As such claimant has to refund the excess amount of Rs.8,213/- already paid being differential between Jaipur and Jodhpur rates. (d) Claim for transportation of 320 Kilo litre petroleum products from Baroda to Saiawas dispatch point is not maintainable since tank trucks were attached to and sent by Saiawas depot to Baroda for bridging and were not shifted/attached to Baroda. As such, claim of Rs.54,297.60 is rejected. (e) Claim of Rs.14,671.26 for transportation of 40 Kilo litre petroleum products from Jamnagar to Hanumangarh dispatch point as claimed is not maintainable since tank trucks were attached to and sent by Hanumangarh depot to Jamnagar disptach point for bridging. As such L-l rate of Hanumangarh depot shall apply and not of Jamnagar. But contractor has been paid at rates applicable to Jodhpur depot which is not correct. As such, contractor is entitled to be paid a sum of Rs. 14,923/- being differential between Hanumangarh and Jodhpur rates. This claim is accordingly partly allowed for Rs. 14,923/- only. Rest of the claim is rejected. Accordingly, I hold that claimant is entitled to receive a total amount of Rs.2,15,949 and respondent is liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,15,949. Payment to be made within 30 days from receipt of award. Rest of claim of the claimant demanding payment @ applicable at locations where tank trucks were sent for bridging is not maintainable and is rejected."
(3.) The claimant assailed the validity of the award passed by the Arbitrator to the extent that the amount of transporting the petroleum products from Jamnagar to Jodhpur, Bhatinda to Hanumangarh and Baroda to Salawas was disallowed. Learned District Judge, Jodhpur City allowed the application preferred by the respondent-claimant under Section 34 of the Act and reversed the findings of the Arbitrator rejecting the claim of the respondent-claimant for transporting the petroleum products from Jamnagar to Jodhpur, Bhatinda to Hanumangarh and Baroda to Salawas.;