ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J.
1. Petitioner filed petition under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 alleging that the petitioner and respondent No. 1 entered into a contract bearing A/T No. J. 13031/4/4/85-PUR.IV dated 4-1-1985 for supply of Vanaspati to defense Services. Disputes between the parties with respect to the performance of the above said contract were referred to the sole arbitration of respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 gave notice of the award alongwith signed copy of the award dated 20th April, 1990 to the petitioner which was received on 3rd May, 1990. It is prayed that respondent No. 2 be directed to file the award alongwith the arbitration proceedings in arbitration case No. 9-F/89 in Court.
2. In response to the notice of the filing of the award by respondent No. 2, respondent No. 1 filed objection under Sections 30 and 33 of the Act being I.A. No. 14076/92. It is alleged that extension of delivery period granted by respondent No. 1 to the petitioner was subject to recovery of liquidate damages. Respondent No. 1 was put to great inconvenience due to failure of the petitioner in not supplying the stores on due dates of deliveries. Conclusion arrived at by the arbitrator as regards award on Claim No. 3 is thus erroneous and liable to be set aside.
3. Petitioner did not choose to file any reply to the objections.
4. Claim No. 3 and the award made thereon as noted in the award dated 20th April, 1990 reads thus :
Claim No. 3
The claimants claim a sum of Rs. 5,628/- towards the refund of said amount as recovered by the respondents from the claimants on account of liquidated damages.
AWARD
The claim is allowed as the respondent Union of India could not prove any loss suffered by them because of delayed supplies of stores made by the claimants to the respondents.
5. Contention advanced by Sh. Vijay Mehta appearing for the claimant was that damages under a contract can be claimed only when the loss is proved. Since the arbitrator found that respondent No. 1 had not proved any loss, no fault can be found with the award given on aforesaid Claim No. 3. Further, according to Sh. Mehta, under the law arbitrator is made the final arbiter of disputes between the parties and award is not open to challenge on the ground that the arbitrator has reached a wrong conclusion or has failed to appreciate the facts. In support of the submissions, strong reliance was placed on the decisions in Pearl Hosiery Mills v. U.O.I. (1978 RLR 94), and M/s. Hindustan Tea Co. v. Sashikant & Co. and another (1986(2) Scale 756 = 1987(1) Arb. LR 29). In the decision in Pearl Hosiery Mills case (supra), it was held by this Court that Government can claim damages under a contract only if it proves that the loss was caused by the neglect of contractor. In M/s. Hindustan Tea Co’s. case (supra), it was held by the Apex Court that under the law, arbitrator is made the final arbiter of the disputes between the parties and the award is not open to challenge on the ground that the arbitrator has reached a wrong conclusion or has failed to appreciate the facts.
6. Considering the ratio in Pearl Hosiery Mills case (supra) as not loss was shown to have been suffered by respondent No. 1 because of delayed supply of stores by the petitioner, respondent No. 1 was not entitled to claim any damages from the petitioner as per the aforementioned contract dated 4-1-1985. Assuming for the sake of argument that the arbitrator had reached a wrong conclusion that liability to pay a damages by the petitioner would arise only when respondent No. 1 was shown to have suffered loss on account of delayed supply of stores, that finding is not open to challenge under Sections 30 & 33 of the Act as held in M/s. Hindustan Tea Co.’s case (supra), objections in question thus deserve to be dismissed.
7. In No. 14076/96 is, therefore, dismissed and the award dated 20th April, 1990 is made the rule of the Court. Decree be drawn up.
8. Award made rule of the court.