An arbitrator's decision on a question of fact, even if erroneous, does not amount to misconduct or misconduct of the proceedings, unless it is an error apparent on the face of the record.

( 1 ) IN C. R. P. No. 1056 of 1986, by an order dated 14-7-1987 (reported in 1987-2 APLJ (HC) 447), I have appointed Shri Justice Challa Kondaiah, retired Chief Justice of High Court of Andhra Pradesh as the sole arbitrator to adjudicate upon the disputes between the petitioner and the first respondent in respect of the words "special Repairs to the existing W. B. M. Road and providing B. T. Surface to Atmakur-Somasila Road Kms. 15/0 to 21/0". In pursuance of that order, the arbitrator has entered upon reference and after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced before him, passed an award dated 12-11-1988 allowing the claim of the petitioner in C. R. P. No. 1056 of 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Contractor ) for a total sum of Rs. 91,606/with simple interest at 12% per annum from 4-8-1981.

( 2 ) THE Government filed C. M. P. No. 4428 of 1989 under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) to set aside the award on the ground of misconduct. The contractor on the other hand filed C. M. P. No. 1134 of 1989 under Ss. 14 and 17 of the Act to make the award, a rule of the court. As common questions of fact and law arise in both the petitions, they were heard and are being disposed of together.

( 3 ) THE learned Government Pleader attacked the award on three grounds viz. , (1) the finding regarding the delay in execution of work is not based upon any evidence and as such the enhanced rate awarded by the arbitrator is not warranted. (2) the arbitrator has not passed the award within four months as provided in Schedule I of the Act and hence the award passed beyond the period of four months is a nullity. (3) the awarding of interest from 4-8-1981 is not permissible as the contractor is not entitled to interest during the period covered by the arbitration proceedings.

( 4 ) I shall deal with these objections seriatim.

( 5 ) THE arbitrator in the award has allowed some of the claims and disallowed some of the claims put forth by the contractor. The arbitrator relying upon the statement given by the contractor on oath before him that he mentioned in the applications seeking extension of time that he would not make any claim for the increase in the price at the instance of the officers as they threatened him that otherwise he would not be given extension of time (which fact was not contradicted by any positive evidence), upheld the claim of the contractor to claim the increase in the value of the cost of the work. The arbitrator however held that the amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- claimed by the contractor is excessive and exorbitant and fixed the same at Rs. 25,000/- on that account.

( 6 ) THE learned Government Pleader submitted that the site was handed over to the contractor on 16-6-1977; that he has not completed the work within the stipulated period of four months; that the time was extended from time to time till 30-4-1979; that the contractor made an endorsement that he has no further claims; that all the claims made by the contractor pertain to the extended period; that as per the agreement, the contractor has to work out at the agreed rates and that the delay in execution of the work is due to the laches of the contractor and hence he is not entitled to claim any amount towards the increase in the value of the cost of the work.

( 7 ) IT is necessary at this stage to consider the scope of the application filed under S. 30 of the Act. A Division Bench of this court of which I happened to be a party, held in State of Andhra Pradesh v. R. V. Rajaram, (1988) 1 APLJ (HC) 536, that an award passed by the arbitrator can be interfered with by the Civil Court only if the award is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record. It is further held that the error must be one of law and not one of fact and that the Civil Court has no jurisdiction to re-appreciate the evidence and interfere with the award on the ground that its conclusions are erroneous. The learned counsel