( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of the objections filed under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 by the petitioner for setting aside the Award dated 29th May, 1984. The facts which are incorporated in the application are. referred to in paragraphs 1 to 5 which may be reproduced as follows :

"1. That on the request of the respondent No. 1 load of 1707 KV for power and 9. 5 KV for lighting, total 1716. 5 KV was sanctioned as per revised agreement dated 15th November, 1977. 2. That it was agreed between the parties that the Tariff Schedule LIP will be applicable. 3. That one of the gadgets described in the Test notice submitted by the respondent No. 1 was electric arc furnace which as per specifications given in the test notice was rated as 1400 KW and as is the practice, the same was accepted as correct. 4. That on inspection by the Enforcement Department of DESU on 4th August, 1978 a load of 2080 KWA of the arc furnace besides load of 194. 17 HP for other installations was found which was in excess of the sanctioned load. Therefore, a notice for the levy of 25% surcharge was served on the respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 29. 8. 1978. Another notice was served on the respondent No. 1 on 16. 12. 1978 in which detailed reasons for levy of 25% surcharge was given. It is submitted. that the respondent No. 1 deliberately underrated the capacity of arc furnace as 1400 KW with a view to reduce the billing demand. 5. That the respondent No. 1 did not make payment of 25% surcharge amounting to Rs. 15,49,357. 11 inspite of notice. "the disputes, therefore, arose between the parties and the matter was referred to the sole arbitration of Shri S. K. Basu, respondent No. 2 who gave his Award and declined the claim of the petitioner. The Arbitrator gave the reasons for his findings after hearing both the parties. The following points which arose for determination have been referred to in the Award :

"1. What is the capacity of the arc furnace installed in the factory of the claimant in KVA as well as in KW? 2. Whether the claimant had connected load in excess of the sanctioned limit? 3. If the levy of the 25% surcharge by DESU on account of above is justified and, if so, what amount is due to DESU from the claimant?"the findings are recorded as follows :

"1. That the capacity of the arc furnace in KVA may be taken as 2080 as per the rating of the transformer and in KW is 1500 MX. respectively as per the information supplied by the manufacturer. 2. When the tariff is based on KVA Max demand charge, there is no relevance of 0. 85 p. f. The consumer is automatically penalised for low p. f. as the KVA demand increases. DESU should have advised the consumer to improve its p. f. as it is beneficial to both. P. F. of an electric arc furnace is of the order of 0. 6 to 0. 7 normally. 3. Computation of KW Max. demand from KVA Max. demand recorded in the meter by multiplying with 0. 85, is not technically justified when KW Max. demand meter is installed in the consumers premises. The actual KW Max. demand is available from the meter. It may be acceptable when there is no KW Max. demand meter and the charges are on KW demand basis. 4. Computation of KW Max. demand from KVA Max. demand reading and imposing surcharge thereon if it exceeds sanctioned load tentamounts to "double penalty" as he is paying on actual KVA Max. demand recorded. It is, therefore, awarded that : (i) No surcharge to be levied for excess load unless the KW Max. demand indicator installed in the consumer s premises indicate reading in excess of sanctioned KW load. Computation of KW demand from KVA Max. demand reading by multiplying it with 0. 85 p. f. is not correct. (ii) DESU should make efforts to motivate the consumer to improve its p. f. by installing capacitors, as it will be beneficial to him because the KVA demand charges will go down. (iii) The consumer should correctly indicate the rating of the furnace as 1500 KW max. , if it wants to use it to its full