JUDGMENT Nagendra Rai, J 1. This appeal has been filed against the order dated 19.12.1984 passed in Misc. Case No. 14 of 1982 by which the learned Special Subordinate Judge, Ranchi allowed the objection of the respondent under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act and set aside the award with regard to interest amounting to Rs. 16,225.54 paise which was allowed by the arbitrators for a period from 11.11.1972 to 23.2.1982 and modified the cost from Rs. 2,500 to Rs. 200. 2. The respondent has also filed cross-objection against that part of the order by which the arbitrators rejected its prayer for setting aside the award as a whole. 3. It appears from the record that the appellant's premises was insured by the respondent under policy No. 310/BP/1420 and whereby opposite party agreed to indemnify the appellant against losses and damages by a house breaking or by burglary with regard to the stock in trade up to Rs. 50,000. The period of aforesaid policy was from 10.10.1972 to 10.10.1973. On 10.11.1972 a burglary took place in the premises of the appellant and property worth Rs. 17,750 was stolen away by the miscreants. The matter was reported to the Lalpur Police Station on the same day and the respondent was also informed on the same day by the telephone. 4. The appellant lodged a claim on 11.1.1972 to the Insurance Company and also submitted a copy of the information and thereafter a claim case was registered and respondent deputed a surveyor for survey and assessment of the losses and damages caused by the burglary. Thereafter the surveyor surveyed and submitted a report. The appellant also submitted necessary paper as required by the respondent but the opposite party did not pay the claim and kept the matter pending and on 18.3.1976 the claim of the petitioner was rejected. 5. Clause 13 of the Insurance Policy contains arbitration clause and provides, inter alia, that all differences arising out of this Policy shall be referred to the decision of an Arbitrator to be appointed in writing by the parties in difference or if they cannot agree upon a single Arbitrator to the decision of two Arbitrators to be appointed in writing by each party. 6. 6. The appellant by letter dated 16.10.1976 invoked the Arbitration clause and requested the respondent to appoint arbitrator and when the respondent did not appoint arbitrator then the appellant filed an application under Section 8 of the Indian Arbitration Act in the court of Special Subordinate Judge being M.J.C. Case No. 7 of 1978. Thereafter it appears that the parties agreed to send the dispute to the Arbitrators and both the parties nominated their Arbitrators. The appellant appointed Mr. S. N. Lal, Advocate and opposite party appointed Shri N. K. Roy, Advocate as their Arbitrators. Sri H. K. Lal was appointed Umpire in accordance with the terms of the policy. The Arbitrators asked the appellant to file his statement of claim and the respondent to file its rejoinder. The appellant filed his statement of claim on 9.6.1980 and stated that burglary was committed on 10.11.1972 as stated above and it suffered a loss of Rs. 17,750 on account of that and accordingly claimed the aforesaid amount on account of loss and damages; interest at the rate of 18% from the date of claim till realization, cost of arbitration amounting to Rs. 5,000 and Rs. 3,000 on account of harassment caused by the opposite party. 7. The claim was resisted by the respondent by filing a counter-statement on the ground that the claim was barred by limitation and that no burglary has taken place in the premises in question and a theft has taken place and accordingly the claim is not maintainable in law. 8. Both parties adduced evidence and filed their documents and the Arbitrators gave award which was signed and published by them on 24th February, 1982. The Arbitrator awarded the following amounts to the appellant : (i) A sum of Rs. 17,500 (Rupees Seventeen thousand five hundred) only be paid to the claimant M/s. Foundry of India by the opposite party M/s. Oriental Fire General Insurance Co. Ltd., on account of losses and damages caused to the claimant by burglary. (ii) A sum of Rs. 16,255.54 (Rupees Sixteen thousand Two hundred Fifty Five and paise Fifty Four) only be paid to the claimant by the opposite party as interest on the aforesaid amount from the date of claim i.e., 11.11.72 to 23.2.82. (iii) The claimant is also entitled to interest on the aforesaid amount @ 10% per annum from the date of award. 16,255.54 (Rupees Sixteen thousand Two hundred Fifty Five and paise Fifty Four) only be paid to the claimant by the opposite party as interest on the aforesaid amount from the date of claim i.e., 11.11.72 to 23.2.82. (iii) The claimant is also entitled to interest on the aforesaid amount @ 10% per annum from the date of award. (iv) The opposite party also pay to the claimant a sum of Rs. 2,500 (Rupees Two thousand Five hundred) as cost of this arbitration. 9. The Arbitrators sent the award on stamp paper to the court of Special Subordinate Judge, Ranchi which was received on 4.3.1982 and thereafter the learned Special Judge issued notices to the parties to show cause as to why award shall not be accepted and made rule of the Court. 10. The respondent appeared and filed objection on 21.4.1982 under Sections 15, 16 and 30 of the Arbitration Act and challenge the award. The ground for challenging the award was that there was gross errors committed by the Arbitrators which are apparent on the face of the award. The arbitrators failed to distinguish between theft and burglary. The risk of theft is not covered under the policy and as such the Arbitrators could not have awarded any amount and they also illegally awarded interest from 11.11.1972 to 23.2.82 i.e., from the date of occurrence till passing of the award. Award has been improperly procured. The order for payment of interest from the date of award was also illegal. The cost awarded by the Arbitrators was also illegal. It was further stated in the objection that the claim of the claimant was barred by limitation. Umpire appointed by the parties did not participate in the arbitration proceeding and the award did not bear his signature rendering the whole proceeding void. The award was also not published within four months after entering into the reference and as such the same was void. 11. The appellant filed a rejoinder to the objection and the case of the appellant as it appears from the rejoinder is that the award is according to law and is binding on the parties. The award being non-speaking it cannot be reviewed. The Arbitrators were justified in granting interest. The cost was also legally awarded and binding on the respondent. The appellant filed a rejoinder to the objection and the case of the appellant as it appears from the rejoinder is that the award is according to law and is binding on the parties. The award being non-speaking it cannot be reviewed. The Arbitrators were justified in granting interest. The cost was also legally awarded and binding on the respondent. It was further stated that the arbitration proceeding was conducted in accordance with arbitration agreement and with mutual co-operation and full accord of both the parties and as such there was no question of award being void on the ground that the award was given after more than four months from the date of entering into the reference. 12. The learned Special Subordinate Judge, Ranchi considering the aforesaid objections of the respondent disallowed the objection with regard to the amount of Rs. 17,500 awarded to the appellant on account of loss and damages caused by burglary. He also disallowed the objection of the respondent with regard to the interest on the aforesaid amount from the date of award till realisation. However, he allowed the objection of the respondent so far as interest awarded by the Arbitrators from 11.11.72 to 23.2.82 as well as the amount of interest at the rate of 10% on the amount awarded as interest from the aforesaid period 11.11.72 to 23.2.82. He also allowed the objection of the respondent with regard to the cost and reduced the cost of Rs. 2,500 awarded by the arbitrators to Rs. 200. Thereafter the appellant filed this appeal after being aggrieved by the part of the judgment and the respondent has filed the cross-objection as stated above. 13. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the award in question being a non-speaking award it is not open to court to attempt to prove the mental process by which the arbitrators have reached their conclusion when it is not disclosed by the terms of the award and accordingly in the present case the court below has erred in law in setting aside the non-speaking award in part. He further submitted that the court below has committed error in disallowing the claim of interest from the date of occurrence up to the date of the award as well as the interest on the amount awarded as interest for the said period. He further submitted that the court below has committed error in disallowing the claim of interest from the date of occurrence up to the date of the award as well as the interest on the amount awarded as interest for the said period. He further submitted that the award of cost is within the discretion of the Arbitrators and the Arbitrators after taking into consideration the numbers of sittings held by them as well as other materials awarded a cost of Rs. 2,500 and there was no reason for reducing the aforesaid amount by the court below. 14. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent repelled the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the appellant and submitted that in this case arbitrators entered into reference before coming into force of the Interest Act, 1978 on 19th August, 1981 and such arbitrator has no power to award interest for a period prior to entering into the reference or interest pendente lite and the court rightly disallowed the interest awarded by the arbitrators from 11-11-72 to 23-2-82 as well as the interest on the said amount. He further submitted that the entire award itself is bad in law as Arbitrators committed error of law apparent on the face of the award inasmuch as the claim of the appellant was with regard to theft committed in his industrial premises which was not covered by the terms of the policy and the policy only covered the risk with regard to burglary and house breaking. In other words, the Arbitrators have exceeded jurisdiction. He further submitted that the claim of the appellant was barred by limitation. The arbitrators were also not justified in granting interest from the date of the award till realisation as arbitrators have no such power. He also submitted that the cost awarded by the arbitrators was excessive one and the court below has rightly reduced the same. He further submitted that in this case the award was passed after expiry of time of arbitration and as such the award is void. 15. He also submitted that the cost awarded by the arbitrators was excessive one and the court below has rightly reduced the same. He further submitted that in this case the award was passed after expiry of time of arbitration and as such the award is void. 15. In reply to the submission made on behalf of the respondent on the point that the arbitrators have exceeded the jurisdiction in the sense that the policy did not cover the theft it was contended on behalf of the appellant that the question as to whether the theft is included within the burglary or not was the question referred to the arbitrators and arbitrators have decided the same after hearing the parties and have taken the view that the theft was also included within burglary and the view taken by the arbitrators is also reasonable and plausible and in that view of the matter the court has no power to set aside the award on that ground as the court cannot sit in appeal over the award. With regard to the submission that the award was given after expiry of time of arbitration it was submitted that both parties participated in the arbitration proceeding and no objection was raised that the time was expired and as such by the conduct the parties shall be deemed to have agreed for the extension of time and on that ground award cannot be held to be invalid one. In reply, he also contended that the claim of the appellant was not barred by limitation as the claim of the appellant was rejected on 18-3-76 and thereafter the appellant invoked the arbitration clause on 16-10-76 much within the period of one year as provided under clause 13 of the Insurance policy and as such the aforesaid submission is also of no force. 16. Admittedly, the award is a non-speaking one and now it is well settled that the award cannot be set aside merely on the ground that it does not contain reason in support of its conclusion. When an award is a non-speaking one it is not open for the court to speculate as to what impelled the arbitrators to arrive at his conclusion. A constitution bench of the Supreme Court considered the aforesaid matter in the case of Rajpur Development Authority etc. v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors etc. (Rep. When an award is a non-speaking one it is not open for the court to speculate as to what impelled the arbitrators to arrive at his conclusion. A constitution bench of the Supreme Court considered the aforesaid matter in the case of Rajpur Development Authority etc. v. M/s. Chokhamal Contractors etc. (Rep. in AIR 1990 SC 1426 ) and held as follows (at p. 1435 of AIR) : "It is now well-settled that an award can neither be remitted nor set aside merely on the ground that it does not contain reasons in support of the conclusion or decisions reached in it except where the arbitration agreement or the deed of submission required him to give reasons. The arbitrator or umpire is under no obligation to give reasons in support of the decision reached by him unless under the arbitration agreement or in the deed of submission he is required to give such reasons and if the arbitrator or umpire chooses to give reasons in support of his decision it is open to the Court to set aside the award if it finds that an error of law has been committed by the arbitrator or umpire on the face of the record on going through such reasons. The arbitrator or umpire shall have to give reasons also where the court has directed in any order such as the one made under Section 20 or Section 21 or Section 34 of the Act that reasons should be given or where the statute which governs an arbitration requires him to do so." 17. It is also equally well settled that the court does not sit in appeal over the award of the arbitrator and as such it has no jurisdiction to examine the correctness of the award on merits. (See Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India ( AIR 1989 SC 777 )). The arbitrator's adjudication is generally considered binding between the parties for he is a tribunal selected by the parties and the power of the Court to set aside the award is restricted to cases set out in Section 30 of the act. (See Puri Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India ( AIR 1989 SC 777 )). The arbitrator's adjudication is generally considered binding between the parties for he is a tribunal selected by the parties and the power of the Court to set aside the award is restricted to cases set out in Section 30 of the act. Award can be set aside if the arbitrator has misconducted himself or the proceeding or the award has been made after the issue of an order by the court superseding the arbitration or after arbitration proceedings have become invalid under Section 35 or there is error of law apparent on the face of the record or award has been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid. However the jurisdiction of the arbitrator is limited by the reference and if the arbitrator has assumed jurisdiction not possessed by him the award to the extent to which is beyond the arbitrator's jurisdiction would be invalid and liable to be set aside. 18. So far as the submission that the arbitrators have exceeded jurisdiction in passing the award as theft was not covered within the policy in question it is to be stated that from the claim and rejoinder filed by the parties it is clear that the said matter was also referred to the arbitrators. Both the parties made their submissions and relied upon the relevant documents on the said point and thereafter the arbitrators came to the conclusion that theft was also included within the word burglary. The conclusion arrived at by the arbitrators cannot be said to be unreasonable one, on the other hand, it appears to be a reasonable and plausible one. The court below has also considered the aforesaid point and has also come to the conclusion that the claim made by the appellant was covered by the Insurance Policy as clauses (a) and (b) of condition No. 1 included theft also in the certain circumstances. As the view taken by the arbitrators is a plausible and reasonable one the award cannot be set aside only on the ground that a different view of the matter can be taken. As the view taken by the arbitrators is a plausible and reasonable one the award cannot be set aside only on the ground that a different view of the matter can be taken. Even assuming that the decision arrived at by the arbitrator is an erroneous decision that will not amount to a misconduct on the part of the arbitrator and that it is well settled that it is not misconduct on the part of the arbitrator to give a erroneous decision whether his decision is one of fact or of law and whether or not his findings of fact are supported by evidence. See Food Corporation of India v. Joginderpal Mohinderpal ( AIR 1989 SC 1263 ). Besides this as the award is non-speaking one it cannot be presumed that the arbitrators allowed the claim illegally. 19. So far as the power of arbitrators to award interest on the amount of claim is concerned, now it is well settled that in cases which arose before commencement of the Interest Act, 1978 on 19th August, 1981 the claimants are not entitled to claim interest either before commencement of the proceeding or during the pendency of the arbitration. They are not entitled to interest prior to the commencement of the arbitration proceeding for the reason that the Interest Act, 1939 does not apply in their cases. In case of arbitration without intervention of a court the claimants are not entitled to claim pendente lite interest as the arbitrator is not a court. (See Executive Engineer, Irrigation Galimala v. Abhadutta Jena (AIR 1989 SC 1520)). In the present case the arbitrators entered into reference on 12-5-80 prior to coming into force of Interest Act 1978 and as such claimant-appellant is not entitled to claim interest either before the commencement of the proceeding or during the pendency of the arbitration proceeding and the court below has rightly set aside that part of the award granting interest to them from November, 1972 to 23-2-1982. 20. 20. So far as the grant of interest from the date of award to the date of decree is concerned, the arbitrators have no such power and the arbitrators have accordingly committed error of law apparent on the face of the record and that part of the award granting interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of award till realisation is not in accordance with law and is set aside. 21. Regarding the submission that the claim of the appellant was barred by limitation, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent referred to condition No. 13 of the policy which provides, inter alia that if the Company shall disclaim liability to the Insured for any claim hereunder and such claim shall not within twelve calendar months from the date of such disclaimer have been referred to arbitration under the provisions herein contained then the claim shall for all purposes be deemed to have been abandoned and shall not thereafter be recoverable hereunder. He contended that as the claim was not referred to the arbitrators within twelve months from the date of disclaimer of the liability of the company the claim itself was barred and the award on this ground is vitiated. I am unable to agree to his submission for the reason that in this case from the record it appears that Insurer-respondent disclaimed the liability on 18-3-76 and the appellant invoked arbitration clause on 16-10-76 much less within the period of one year and as such the claim was not barred by limitation. The aforesaid submission is also not tenable on the ground that both the parties agreed to refer the dispute to the arbitrators and the question that the claim was barred by limitation was also referred to the arbitrators as it appears from the claim of the appellant and the reply filed by the respondent and the arbitrators after considering the same has allowed the claim. The award is a non-speaking one and it cannot be presumed that the arbitrators did not decide the aforesaid point. 22. So far as the submission made on behalf of the respondent that award was given after the expiry of time of arbitration and as such the award is void, is without substance. The award is a non-speaking one and it cannot be presumed that the arbitrators did not decide the aforesaid point. 22. So far as the submission made on behalf of the respondent that award was given after the expiry of time of arbitration and as such the award is void, is without substance. The parties participated in the arbitration proceeding even after the expiry of four months and by their conduct they will be deemed to have agreed for the extension of time. See Nagar Palika, Mirzapur v. The Mirzapur Elec. Supply Co. Ltd. ( AIR 1990 SC 2273 ). 23. As the arbitrators have found the claim of the appellant to be genuine one, it is fit case where the appellant should be awarded interest for the period from the date of decree till the date of realisation of the amount and this power is vested in the court under Section 29 of the Arbitration Act and accordingly I direct the respondent to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realisation of amount of claim. So far as the amount of cost awarded by the arbitrators is concerned, the court below has reduced the cost from Rs. 2,500 to Rs. 200. As stated above as the court does not sit in appeal over the award of the arbitrator, the court below was not justified in reducing the amount of cost as the arbitrators awarded the aforesaid cost after taking into consideration the numbers of sittings and witnesses examined in the case. Accordingly, order of the Court below reducing the amount of cost from Rs. 2,500 to Rs. 200 - is set aside. 24. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the order of the court below reducing the amount of cost is set aside and the appellant is entitled to the entire cost awarded by the arbitrators. The appellant is also entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the realisation and the claim for interest before commencement of the proceeding or during the pendency of the arbitration proceeding is concerned, the same is disallowed and the appeal to that extent is dismissed. The appellant is also entitled to interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of decree till the realisation and the claim for interest before commencement of the proceeding or during the pendency of the arbitration proceeding is concerned, the same is disallowed and the appeal to that extent is dismissed. The crossappeal of the respondent is allowed in part and the award allowing interest from the date of award till the realisation is modified to the extent that the appellant shall be entitled to interest only from the date of decree till the realisation as mentioned above. There shall be no order as to costs. Order accordingly.