MISC. APPEAL No.383 OF 2003 In the matter of Memo of Appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. ********* 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER -CUM-CHAIRMAN, GIC, Bombay. 2. Union of India, through Chairman-cum-Managing Director, National Insurance Co. Ltd. 3, Middleton Street, Calcutta-71.(Appellant) 3. Regional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Jeevan Prakash Building, Frazer Road, Patna, present Address-Sone Bhawan, 3rd Floor, R-Block, Patna. 4. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Krishna Market, Motiheel, Muzaffarpur. 5. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Loharpatti, Main Road, Motihari, P.O. & P.S. Motihari, District-East Champaran. ……….Insurer…..Appellants. Versus 1. UMESH CHANDRA, S/o Late Dhanushdhari Prasad, Secretary, Ward No. 4, Consumers Store Co-operative Society Ltd., Panch Mandir Road, Motihari, P.O. & P.S. Motihari, District-East Champaran…….Insured---(Respondent) 2. The Director, Mehta and Padamsay Surveyers Pvt. Ltd. 7-7 Everse-46C, Chaurangi Road, Calcutta-71……Insurer-6-Respondent. ********** P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA PRAKASH *********** Anjana Prakash, J. The appellants are aggrieved with the order dated 17.07.2003 passed by the Sub-Judge-I, East Champaran, Motihari in Misc. Case No. 2 of 1998 by which he has made the award, rule of the Court and ordered preparation of a decree on the basis of the award entering wrong figures. The appellants are aggrieved with the Umpire fees which has been mentioned in the decree as Rs. 1,30,750/- whereas it should have been Rs. 35,750 since the original award did not contain the figure Rs. 1,30,750. The further submission is that Rs. 19,500 to be paid as Surveyor fee is also bad since the appellants had already paid the Surveyor fee who had been appointed on his behalf. On the other hand, the counsel for the respondents 2 submits that this appeal has become infructuous in circumstances when the amount which was entered in the decree has already been paid by the appellant and, therefore, no useful purpose will be served by further delving in the matter. The appellants’ reply is that the payment was made subject to the final decision in the appeal. On going through the records which are available in the file even though it was disputed that the original award was lost in transit but I find that photocopy of the award was filed subsequently before the Court which was accepted by both the parties and, therefore, to raise a dispute with regard to the figure entered therein is completely meaningless. Moreso, on going through the award, I find that there is an entry of the figure Rs. 1,30,750 albeit the figure 1 (one) was written subsequently. Since there was no objection with regard to the same before the court below such a dispute being raised before this Court does not find favour with this Court. In view of such, I find no merit in such plea. However, since the appellant had paid the Surveyor fee initially there was no requirement for a further payment of Rs. 19,500/- to the Surveyor. In view of such, the Appeal is partly allowed and there shall be no order with regard to payment of Surveyor Fee. Patna High Court, Patna, Dated the 14th February, 2011. NAFR/Vikash/- ( Anjana Prakash, J.)