JUDGMENT
Anil Dev Singh, J.
(1) By this application under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, the respondent, Union of India challenges the award of the Arbitrator dated March 19 1985. The facts giving rise to this application are as under:-
(2) The respondent/Union of India invited tenders for construction and supply of Nos. 100 Ton Steel Dock Barges. The petitioner submitted its tender which was accepted on January 21, 1971. The Accepted Tender(A/T) value of the barges was Rs.11,53,600 excluding delivery charges of Rs.65,000.00 per barge. The respondent asserts that the delivery period was extended from time to time but the petitioner failed to deliver the vessels with the result that the delivery portion of the contract was can celled by the respondent/Union of India on June 23, 1977. A risk purchase contract was finalised on May 21, 1979 with the petitioner and the petitioner agreed to deliver vessels against R/P (risk purchase). As a result of the risk purchase, the respondent incurred extra expenditure for delivery of the vessels to the extent of Rs.6,80,000.00 as per the following details:- Unit price for delay charges Total for 4 Nos, As per Rp A/T Rs.2,35,000 Rs.9,40,000 As per original A/T Rs. 65,000 Rs.2,60,000 Difference Rs.6,80,000
(3) The respondent had also to incur an expenditure on account of insurance of the vessels which came to Rs.4600.00 . On September 7, 1981 the respondent asked the petitioner to reimburse the risk purchase loss amounting to Rs.6,80,000.00 plus insurance charges of Rs.4600.00 . Since the petitioner failed to make the payments, the respondent asked for arbitration of the disputes. On January 21, 1985 Mrs.R. Lakshmanan, Addl. Legal Adviser to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Law, Justice & Company Affairs was appointed as the sole Arbitrator by the Director General of Supplies & Disposal. The learned Arbitrator after hearing the parties and examining the record, came to the conclusion that the petitioner committed breach of contract and failed to supply the ships in terms of the contract. At the same time having held so, the learned Arbitrator dismissed the claim of the Union of India on the ground that the risk purchase contract was made after a lapse of more than three and a half years from the date of “the breach committed by the petitioner. She also came to the conclusion that the respondent failed to observe the principal of mitigation of damages as it made the risk purchase after three and a half years of the date of breach of the contract. Accordingly, the Arbitrator rejected the claim of the Union of India.
(4) In so far as the claim of the contractor for the balance price of the vessels was concerned, she awarded a sum of Rs.l,45,600.00 . It may be noted that the contract relating to construction of the vessels was not cancelled. The respondent feeling aggrieved of the award, filed objections to the same under section 30 of the Arbitration Act.
(5) I have heard learned counsel for the parties. I find that in so far as the construction of vessels are concerned, respondent had not raised any dispute. That means the vessels were ready in time and only the supply & delivery was not made in time by the petitioner with the result that the. contract was cancelled. The learned Arbitrator has rightly considered that a period of three and a half years was taken by the respondent in malting the risk purchase with the result that principles relating to mitigation of damages were not kept in view by the claimant. It is well settled that the Arbitrator is master of facts and law, and the Court should not interfere with the award of the Arbitrator unless there is an error .apparent on the face of the record. . The learned counsel for the respondent has not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of the award. Besides, reasonableness of the reasons given by the Arbitrator cannot be challenged and even appraisal of evidence is never a matter which the Court questions or considers. When the parties select their own forum to decide the disputes, that forum must be conceded power to appraise the evidence as well as quality and quantity of same.
(6) In view of the aforesaid discussion, the objections of the respondent to the award are rejected. Accordingly, the award is made a rule of the Court. A decree in terms thereof is hereby passed.
(7) The request of the petitioner for pendente lite interest is refused. The respondent will make the payment of the decretal amount to the petitioner within a period of three months, failing which the former will pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of decree till payment. No costs.