IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 1 OF 2008 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd .......Appellant versus Mrs. Jamila Iqbal Memon Parekh ....... Respondent. Mrs. Ratna Bhargavan for the Appellants Mr Kishore Patil for the Respondent CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 21ST JULY, 2008. P.C.: 1. This is an appeal preferred by the Insurance Company against the order passed by the District Judge rejecting its application filed under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act of 1996. The respondent has a shop wherein he carries on business of sale of garments and other material. At the time of obtaining loan by the respondent from a bank, as a condition precedent insurance was stipulated for advance of loan and the respondent had insured the shop and godown with the appellant. As fire broke out in the godown the stock was destroyed due to fire. Respondent lodged a claim, with the insurance company in the sum of about Rs. 15 lacs. The Insurance company, it is undisputed, was ready and willing to pay a sum of Rs. 1,52,000/- and odd towards the claim. However, dissatisfied with the said amount agreed to be paid by the appellant, the respondent chose to initiate Arbitration proceedings. Parities contested the matter before the Arbitrator and on appreciation of evidence on record, the Arbitrator found the value of the stock destroyed due to fire, to be in the sum of Rs. 15 lacs. After deducting a sum of Rs. 1,52,000/- paid by the appellant, an award in the sum of Rs. 13, 65,000/- and odd, was passed. Aggrieved thereby an application under section 34 was filed before the District Judge. The District Judge has recorded a finding that none of the grounds raised in the appeal are covered by section 34(2) of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1936 and hence rejected the said application. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant has raised three fold submissions: (1) That the Arbitrator could not have awarded interest as award of interest was specifically excluded in the arbitraral agreement. The following clause is relied upon by the learned counsel in support of the submission that award of interest was specifically excluded. The clause reads thus: “It is hereby expressly stipulated and declared that it shall be the condition precedent to any right of action or suit upon this policy that an award of such arbitrator, arbitrators or Umpire of the amount of the loss or damage shall be first obtained.” The plain reading of the said clause reveals that the parties are obliged to approach in the first instance the Arbitrator and the same has been stipulated as condition precedent to any right of action or suit. I am unable to read in the said clause an ouster of power and authority of the Arbitrator to award interest. Hence the said submission is rejected. 3. The next contention advanced by the learned counsel is that the valuation report prepared by the surveyor of the Insurance Company ought to have been accepted whereas the Arbitrator has rejected the said piece of evidence and accepted the report of a private surveyor and the panchanama prepared by the Income Tax department which goes to reveal the value of the stock to be in the sum of Rs. 15 lacs. This is obviously in the realm of appreciation of evidence and hence cannot be interfered with. The surveyor's report relied upon by the Insurance Company/appellant has been considered by the Arbitrator, and has been rejected in the light of other evidence which according to the Arbitrator was found to be more reliable and probable. In this view of the matter even the second submission is devoid of any merit and stands rejected. 4. The last submission is that the Arbitrator ought not to have award interest from 25th October 1999 viz. the date on which the property was destroyed in fire, as the respondent/claimant had himself claimed interest from 1st May 2000, viz. the date on which the claim was filed before the Arbitrator. It is a settled position in law that the Arbitrator has power to even award interest for a period preceding the reference. Hence this submission is also rejected. 5. I do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the District Judge under under section 34. Hence appeal stands dismissed. 6. At this stage the learned counsel for the appellant seeks stay of this order for a period of eight weeks. The request is granted. This order shall remain stayed for a period of eight weeks from today. (A.P. DESHPANDE, J) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ARBITRATION APPEAL NO.2 OF 2008 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd.. ... Appellant versus Mrs. Rahim Mohammed Haroon Lakhani ...Respondent ALONGWITH ARBITRATION APPEAL NO. 3 OF 2 The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. ..Appellant. Versus Mrs. Hamitahaji Uyunus Parekh ...Respondent Mrs. Ratna Bhargavan for the Appellants Mr Kishore Patil for the Respondent CORAM; A.P. DESHPANDE, J. DATED; 21ST JULY, 2008. P.C.: 1. In view of the reasons recorded in Arbitration Appeal No.1 of 2008, dissmissng the appeal, these appeals also stand dismissed. 2. At this stage the learned counsel for the appellant seeks stay of this order for a period of eight weeks. The request is granted. This order shall remain stayed for a period of eight weeks from today. (A.P. DESHPANDE, J.)