The 'Not Claimed' endorsement on a registered post envelope containing an arbitral award constitutes good service, and the presumption of service under Section 3 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, arises in favor of the sender. The onus lies on the sendee to rebut the presumption and prove that the envelope was not served or that they were not responsible for the non-service.

ASHOKE KUMAR DASADHIKARI, J.

1. THE petitioner New Globe Transport Company moved this petition under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, challenging the award dated 5th August, 2008 passed by the learned arbitrator. Petitioner's case is that they were in transportation business and was in need of finance for purchasing a Tata Truck. They approached the representative of the respondent, Magma Shrachi Finance Limited, a company under Companies Act, 1956. THE respondent's representative offered to finance a sum of Rs.11 lakhs to be repaid in 46 installments at the rate of Rs.29,810 except for first amounting to Rs.10,000 commencing from 1st February, 2007 and expiring on 1st December, 2010. THE petitioner agreed to the terms and conditions of the respondent company and entered into a hire purchase agreement with them upon signing the documents and papers. THE petitioner was also called upon to have said agreement signed by a person known to him who would stand as a guarantor for advancing of the said finance amount and the petitioner did it. Petitioner, thereafter, paid 5 installments on due dates. On 4th July, 2007, the driver of the vehicle being No. WB 23B 1768 loaded with various goods parked the vehicle at a petrol pump situated on NH6 under police station Liluah, District Howrah and had gone to take food at a near by Dhaba. After coming back at about 21.30 hours he did not find the truck. THE driver immediately reported the matter to the petitioner who instructed his Manager Rama Shankar Shaw to lodge a complaint immediately. On the same day at 22.25 hours a written complaints as FIR was lodge to the Officer in Charge Liluah Police Station, District Howrah and a case was started being No.106/2007 under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code. On 4th July, 2007, the petitioner issued a letter to the respondent company informing them that the said vehicle has been stolen on 4th July, 2007, for which complaint has also been lodged with Liluah Police Station. A copy of the FIR was also forwarded to the respondent. Since the truck was insured under National Insurance Company through the insurance cell of the respondent Company the petitioner after collecting all officer forms and documents to be filled in for making insurance claim, send the same to the respondents as per their instruction and handed over all documents to the representative of the respondent in connection with pursuing the insurance claim. THE Insurance Company appointed a surveyor for enquiring and submission of survey report with regard to the loss suffer by the petitioner. A copy of the letter issued by insurance company on 13th July, 2007 was also forwarded to the respondent. On 30th August, 2007 petitioner also informed the respondent that since the vehicle is not traceable and it has been stolen for which necessary complaint has been lodged and the matter has been reported in the insurance company, it will not be possible for the petitioners to go on paying monthly installments. In the meantime the criminal case which was registered by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of Hawrah under Section 379 of the Indian Penal Code ended with the final report filed under Section 173 of Code of Criminal Procedure specifying therein that no fruitful result was achieved for recovery of lost truck with goods. THE orders passed by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate in theft case from Liluah PS case No.106 of 2007 along with the final report was sent to the respondent and one Santanu Bhattacharya, representative of the respondent received the same. Several correspondence as regards clarification and other formalities were made with the insurance company which according to the petitioner, was duly communicated to the respondent company.

2. ON 9th July, 2010, the petitioner received a letter dated 30th July, 2010, issued by the advocate of the respondent informing that the impugned award has been passed on 5th August, 2008, and a copy whereof were