JUDGMENT :

1. A challenge has been made to the order dated 20.07.2007 passed by the Court of learned District and Sessions Judge, Alwar (Raj.) (for short ‘the Appellate Court’) in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 142/2006 by which the application filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short ‘the Act of 1996’) for setting aside the award dated 21.03.2006 has been dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company submits that the respondent filed a complaint No. 274/2022 against the Insurance Company before the District Consumer Protection Forum, Alwar with the averments that in the night of 17.10.2001, certain goods having worth of Rs. 2,80,000/-was stolen from his shop. Learned counsel further submitted that said the shop was insured with the Insurance Company. The Insurance Company assessed the loss of stolen goods as Rs. 44,368/-which was not acceptable to the respondent. Looking to the provisions contained under the policy, the Presiding Officer of the District Consumer Protection Forum appointed one Advocate as an Arbitrator to settle the dispute arose between the parties. In pursuance of the directions issued by the Presiding Officer of the District Consumer Protection Forum, the Arbitrator proceeded with the arbitral proceedings and issued notice to the Insurance Company. Counsel for the appellant further submits that the Insurance Company authorized the Advocate to appear on its behalf and submit the relevant documents, but the Advocate did not submit the same before the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator passed an ex-parte award on 21.03.2006. Counsel further submits that during pendency of the case before the Presiding Officer of the District Consumer Protection Forum, a Surveyor was appointed who inspected the shop of the respondent and prepared a report with regard to the loss suffered by the respondent but this report was not placed before the Arbitrator by the respondent. The respondent was supposed to submit the same before the Arbitrator and the respondent deliberately suppressed the report and in absence of that report, the Arbitrator has relied on the claim petition and the documents submitted by the respondent and passed the award. Counsel further submits that when the objections were submitted before the Appellate Court under Section 34 of the Act of 1996, the same were not considered in terms of the mandatory provisions contained under Sections 28 (1)(a), 28 (3) and 34(2)(iii) but without considering the aforesaid mandatory provisions, the Appellate Court rejected the objections raised by the appellant-Insurance Company. Counsel further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. Vs. SAW Pipes Ltd., reported in 2003 (5) SC 705 has held that if the Arbitral Tribunal has not followed the mandatory provisions contained under Sections 24, 28 and 31(3) of the Act of 1996 then the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal is liable to be quashed and set aside. Counsel further submits that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar Vs. Mohamed Haji Latif and Ors. reported in AIR 1968 SC 1413 has held that whenever a party is in possession of best evidence which could throw light on the issue in controversy and if the document is withhold, the Court ought to have drawn an adverse inference against him. Counsel further submits that in the instant case the respondent was in possession of the report of Surveyor but he deliberately did not place the same before the Arbitrator and the impugned arbitral award was passed against the Insurance Company. Lastly, counsel for the appellant submits that all these material aspects were not considered by the Appellate Court while rejecting the objections taken by the appellant. Hence, the impugned order and impugned arbitral award is liable to be quashed and set aside by this Court.

3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposed the arguments raised by the