The main legal point established in the judgment is the deference to the learned Arbitrator's decisions based on a reasonable interpretation of facts and materials on record, as well as the entitlement to interest on the claim amount.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Narula, J. - I.A. 1956/2021 (for early hearing) in O.M.P. (COMM) 53/2018 &

I.A. 1957/2021 (for early hearing) in O.M.P. (COMM) 454/2017

1. For the reasons stated therein, the applications are allowed. The petitions are being heard today itself.

O.M.P. (COMM) 53/2018 & O.M.P. (COMM) 454/2017

2. The present petitions under Section 34 of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, impugn the arbitral award dated 25th July, 2017 passed by the Sole Arbitrator, Hon'ble Justice (Retd.) Mukul Mudgal [hereinafter referred to as "Award"] in respect of disputes arising out of the Standard Fire and Special Perils Insurance Policy dated 28th February, 2012, which was valid up to 27th February, 2013 [hereinafter referred to as the "Policy"].

BRIEF FACTS:

3. Briefly stated, on account of an incidence of fire that occurred on 25th October, 2012, M/S Worldfa Exports Pvt. Ltd [hereinafter referred to as the 'Insured'] suffered loss and made an insurance claim. United India Insurance Co. Ltd [hereinafter referred to as "Insurance Company"] paid an amount of Rs. 5,62,12,429/- to the Insured on 7th July, 2012. However, the Insured contended that on perusal of the Final Survey Report dated 20th November, 2014 [hereinafter referred to as "Survey Report"], it became evident that arbitrary deductions were made by Insurance Company from the original claim of Rs. 12,97,71,460/-, (which was subsequently revised to 12,69,51,063/-). Aggrieved with the said deductions, the Insured initiated arbitration proceedings against the Insurance Company for release of the deficient amount as claimed. The Arbitral Tribunal was appointed pursuant to a petition under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] filed by the Insured, and the learned Arbitrator, after considering the facts and the evidence led by the parties, partly allowed the claims of the Insured, out of the twelve claims filed by it vide the Impugned Award. Both the parties have impugned the said award on different grounds. The Insurance Company has challenged the said award in respect of the claims allowed, and the Insured in respect of the claims disallowed. The same are being dealt together claim-wise (as numbered in the Impugned Award) hereinbelow:

a) CLAIM NO. II (C)

4. The findings of the learned Arbitrator on this claim are as follows:

"16. It was urged on behalf of the Claimant. that huge quantity to the extent of 58,000 kgs was unjustifiably described by the Surveyor as nonmoving stock, although it was not so and in fact all the goods destroyed were stainless steel utensils and further another large quantity to the tune of 6,000 kgs was wrongly described by the Surveyor as usable accessories and these two descriptions resulted in unwarranted deduction of loss reimbursable to the Claimant. It was argued in this context that the Surveyor has failed to annex any supporting photographs in support of its observation regarding non-moving stock being to the extent of 58,000 kgs and usable accessories being to the extent of 6 metric tons. This argument would work both-ways because if the Surveyor or the Insurance Company have failed to produce any photographs in support of their above discussed step, the Claimant has fared 119 better inasmuch as it has also not produced any authentic documentary evidence supported by electronic record such as CCTV footage etc, to show that 58,000 legs worth of stock referred to above was not "non-moving stock" as wrongly so described by the Surveyor or that 6,000 kgs was not usable accessories" also similarly described by the Surveyor. In this view of the matter, a pragmatic approach has to be taken and keeping in view the extent of operations of the Claimant as reflected in para 10 of this Award above and the attendant circumstances discussed hereinbefore and in view of the admission by the Surveyor of the presence of stock which did not however match with the purchase orders in hand cannot lead to the entire