S. K. SINHA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application by the petitioner under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 for setting aside the award dated 22nd August, 1995 made and published by Mr. Sachin Bandapadhyay as Sole Arbitrator on the grounds setforth in its petition. ( 2 ) BY his impugned award the said Arbitrator has purported to make a lumpsum award in favour of the respondent "against all the claims preferred before" him. The said Arbitrator has also allowed interest. ( 3 ) THE claims preferred by the respondent before the said Arbitrator comprised various heads including those for damages. The respondent also claimed damages on account of idle labour. ( 4 ) AT the hearing it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the award should be set aside principally on the following grounds:-A)no evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent in support of his claim for damages; b)the said Arbitrator in making his impugned award disregarded clause 20 of the special terms and conditions of contract which reads as follows :-"no claim for idle labour would be entertained under any circumstances"; and c) The said Arbitrator had disregarded the fact that the final bill for the works done by the respondent had been accepted by him and that he had made admission to the said effect in the measurement book. ( 5 ) I do not accept the last submission made on behalf of the petitioner. The question whether the final bill was accepted by the respondent or whether there was confirmation by him to the said effect in the measurement book were disputes covered by the arbitration agreement between the parties and the arbitrator was competent to adjudicate thereon and his decision cannot be assailed. See in this connection the case of 'union of India v. D. Bose and Ors. ': AIR 1981, Calcutta 95 cited on behalf of the respondent. ( 6 ) IT was however submitted on behalf of the respondent that the aforesaid submissions of the petitioner lack substance in as much as:-A)even if there was no evidence as to the damage suffered by the respondent the arbitrator was entitled to award damages. In support of his submission the learned counsel relied on the following cases:-i) 'gambhirmull Mahabirprasad v. The Indian Bank Ltd. and Anr. In support of his submission the learned counsel relied on the following cases:-i) 'gambhirmull Mahabirprasad v. The Indian Bank Ltd. and Anr. ': AIR 1963, Calcutta 163; ii) "deo Kumar Saraf v. Union of India' : 1998) 2 CLJ 325. These cases proceed on the basis that if it is found as a fact that there has been a breach of contract on the part of one of the parties the other party is entitled to damages from the wrong-doer even if such damages cannot be assessed with "mathematical accuracy" or even if there is paucity of evidence. These cases are no authority for the proposition that no evidence as such is required to be laid in support of the claim for damages. The other cases relied upon by the learned counsel namely :-'m/s. A. T. Brij Paul Singh and Bros. , v. State of Gujarat' : AIR 1984, Supreme Court 1703; and Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. R. N. Datta' : AIR 1984, Calcutta 118, do not directly bear on this point and as such I refrain from dealing with the same. b) It is for the Arbitrator to interpret the terms of a contract and if the Arbitrator gives an interpretation which is plausible it is not open to the court to substitute its own interpretation and in support of his submission the learned counsel relied on the case of 'union of India v. Abhoy Sarkar and Anr. '; AIR 1992, Calcutta 242. ( 7 ) IN my judgment the impugned award suffers from the following infirmities :-A) There was no evidence before the said Arbitrator to sustain the claim of the respondent for damages. In his impugned award he has merely recorded that documents had been relied upon by the respondent in support of his claims. Document per se merely assert but do not prove unless they are admitted to do so by the party against whom they are tendered. There has to be some oral evidence by the party making the claim in corroboration of the documents relied upon by him. From the recitals in the impugned award it is clear that the said Arbitrator did not take any evidence. There has to be some oral evidence by the party making the claim in corroboration of the documents relied upon by him. From the recitals in the impugned award it is clear that the said Arbitrator did not take any evidence. As stated in Bachawat on the Law of Arbitration (second edition) the learned author who was a distinguished Judge of this court as well as of the Supreme Court has stated as follows :-"it is true that the Evidence Act does not apply to arbitrators. But that only means that an arbitrator is not bound by the technical and strict rules of evidence. He must not disregard the rules of evidence which are based on fundamental principles of justice and fair play". In this case there is no finding by the said Arbitrator that there was a breach of contract on the part of the petitioner. As stated here in above by his said impugned award the arbitrator has made a lump sum award which comprises all heads of claim that were referred to him by the respondent and it is not possible to ascertain as to which portion of his award is attributable to the respondent's claims for damages; b) Clause 20 of the special conditions of contract (supra) in my judgment is clear and unambiguous. The respondent was precluded from making any claim on account of idle labour and the said Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to decide thereon which he has purported to do. This is a jurisdictional error, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of 'associated Engineering and Co. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. ' : AIR 1992, Supreme Court 232; ( 8 ) THE Supreme Court in that case held that where the Umpire decided matters "strikingly outside his jurisdiction", he "overstepped the confines of the contract. He wandered far outside the designated area. He digressed far away from the allotted task. His error arose not by misreading or misconstruing or misunderstanding the contract, but by acting in excess of what was agreed. It was an error going to the root of his jurisdiction because he asked himself the wrong questions, disregarded the contract and acted in excess of his authority ???? the Umpire acted unreasonably irrationally and capriciously and ignored the limits and the clear provisions of the contract". For the aforesaid reasons I set aside the impugned award. It was an error going to the root of his jurisdiction because he asked himself the wrong questions, disregarded the contract and acted in excess of his authority ???? the Umpire acted unreasonably irrationally and capriciously and ignored the limits and the clear provisions of the contract". For the aforesaid reasons I set aside the impugned award. This application thus succeeds. The petitioner shall be entitled to the costs of this application. Application succeeds