JUDGMENT R.V. Raveendran, J.—The appellant in these appeals hired a IBM/370/138 computer from 9-4-1986 under leasing agreement dated 2-5-1986. Under the said agreement, the respondent had agreed to replace the computer by a IBM/370/158 computer after initial period of 4 months. There was delay in replacing the computer and Appellant continued to use the IBM/370/138 system awaiting replacement and continued to pay the rentals. Ultimately, the IBM/370/138 computer was replaced on 5-10-1987 by an IBM/370/158 system and a Second agreement dated 5-11-1987 was entered between the parties covering the leasing of the IBM/370/158 computer for a period of one year from 5-10-1987. The first leasing agreement relating to IBM/370/138 computer came to an end from the. date of leasing of the IBM/370/158 computer from 5-10-1987. 2. Under the agreement dated 5-11-1987, the appellant (hereinafter also referred to as HAL ) had agreed to pay a hire charge of Rs. 1,15,000.00 per month For the IBM/370/158 computer to the respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Compare). The said computer ceased to function, on 27-4-1988. It was repaired by the respondent and again become functional on 12-6-1988. By notice dated 27-7-1988, the appellant informed the respondent that the lease or hiring will not be extended on the expiry of the lease period on 4-10-1988. In view of the determination of the lease by efflux of the lease period, the respondent had to take back the computer on 5-10-1988. The respondent did not however take back the computer on 5-10-1988, but after some correspondence, took back the computer only on 4-2-1989. 3. Thereafter, the respondent raised certain claims against the appellant. The appellant did not admit or agree to the said claims. Therefore, the respondent filed A.C. No. 5/1990 on the file of the City Civil Court, Bangalore under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 ( Act for short) for filing of the agreement and for referring the disputes to arbitration. A joint memo was filed in the said petition by the parties agreeing that Indian Council of Arbitration should appoint a sole arbitrator in terms of the agreement for deciding the disputes. The said petition was disposed of in view of the said joint memo. Thereafter, Indian Council of Arbitration appointed Sri S. Ramachandran, a retired Chief Engineer, Government of India, as sole arbitrator and he entered upon the reference. 4. The said petition was disposed of in view of the said joint memo. Thereafter, Indian Council of Arbitration appointed Sri S. Ramachandran, a retired Chief Engineer, Government of India, as sole arbitrator and he entered upon the reference. 4. Before the arbitrator, respondent filed its claim statement praying as follows: "In the circumstances, the petitioner prays that an award may be passed for a total sum of Rs. 57,93,264.00 along with interest at 18% p.a. during the pendency of the arbitration proceedings, till payment thereof and further order payment of Rs. 1,15,000.00 per month from the 19th of March 1990, till the respondent pays Rs. 17,50,000.00 or returns the books held by it and pays the erection, testing and commissioning charges, valued at Rs. 1,50,000.00 and if the computer is not in order, pays value thereof at Rs. 17,50,000.00. Interest on all these amounts costs, including cost of arbitration and such other reliefs as this Hon'ble Authority may deem fit in the interest of justice." The details of the prayer are contained in the annexure to the claim statement and they are extracted below:- S. No Description of claims Reasons Amount 1 Amount payable with respect to deduction unauthorisedly made in rentals for the period commencing from 27.4.88 to 12.6.88. Payable for not maintaining proper environment conditions the and not showing required skill and expertise as is required of an expert to deal with such sophisticated computers. Rs. 1,89,175/- 2 Amount payable for the period commencing from 23rd July 88 to November 88. Payable for not giving the required notice of four months for termination of the contract. 1,91,666/67/- 3 Unauthorised deduction of amounts from invoice 013 dated 3.10.88. Unauthorised deduction and refusal to pay for use of Fortran compiler. 10,580/- 4 Unauthorised deductions with respect to use of Fortran Compiler for the period from 9.5.86 to 30.11.86. Unauthorised deductions and refusal to pay for use of Fortran compiler. 13,493.33/- 5 Unauthorised deductions with respect to use of Fortran compiler in April 87 and May 87. Unauthorised deductions and refusal to pay for use of Fortran compiler. 8000/- 6 Deductions made in the rentals for the period of 20 days in the month of August 87 at Rs. 82,500/- per month. Payable for unauthorized deductions without any reason and inspite of admission of liability. 1,774/- 7 Sum payable for the false flooring. Unauthorised deductions and refusal to pay for use of Fortran compiler. 8000/- 6 Deductions made in the rentals for the period of 20 days in the month of August 87 at Rs. 82,500/- per month. Payable for unauthorized deductions without any reason and inspite of admission of liability. 1,774/- 7 Sum payable for the false flooring. False flooring was provided by the petitioner for an initial period of four months only under the earlier agreement. But the respondent used it for more than an year, as the preparation of the Computer room for the 370/158 was unduly delayed by them. Hence rental was claimed and is payable by the respondent. 18000/- 8 Amount payable for the unauthorised commercial exploitation of the computer for the period from 20th August 87 to 3rd September 89. Payable as compensation for unauthorised use of the computer system. 41,250/- 9 Damages payable at Rs. 1,15,000/- per month, for the period from 27th April 88 to 22nd September 89. Becomes payable for not returning the computer/parts thereof in working condition. 1939666/67/- 10 Damages payable for not making the computer available for the period from 5th October 88 to 19th March 90 on which day was the arbitration case filed in the Court. Becomes payable for not returning the Second computer/parts thereof in working condition and also for not returning the books, thereby rendering the Second computer system useless for further exploitation by the petitioner. 20,10,500/- 11 The loss suffered due to the computers and books not being made available to the petitioner. Payable for not returning computers/parts thereof in working condition and in not returning the books. Further damages payable at Rs. 1,15,000/- per month, till the computer as per conditions as set forth in para 18 of the petition or restoration of Rs. 17,50,000/- being the value of the replaced units of the computer. 12 Further interest at 18% is payable on all the following amounts as detailed hereunder: (a) On Rs. 1,89,175/- till date from 27.4.88. (b) On Rs. 1,91,666/67 till date from 23.7.88. (c) On Rs. 10,580/- till date from 3.10.88. (d) On Rs. 13,493/33 till date from 9.7.86. (e) On Rs. 8,000/- till date from April 87. (f) On Rs. 1,774/- till date from August 87. (g) On Rs. 41,250/- till date from August 87. (H) On Rs. 19,39,666/67 till date from 27.4.88. (i) On Rs. 20,10,500/- till date from 5.10.88 5. (c) On Rs. 10,580/- till date from 3.10.88. (d) On Rs. 13,493/33 till date from 9.7.86. (e) On Rs. 8,000/- till date from April 87. (f) On Rs. 1,774/- till date from August 87. (g) On Rs. 41,250/- till date from August 87. (H) On Rs. 19,39,666/67 till date from 27.4.88. (i) On Rs. 20,10,500/- till date from 5.10.88 5. Compare, who was the Claimant/Petitioner raised the following points of reference for adjudication by the Arbitrator in para 22 of the claim petition filed before the Arbitrator: a) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the loss of income due to the non-availability of the items damaged on 27th April 1988. If so at what rate and for what period? b) Whether the items substituted on 12th June 1988 viz; CPU, Disk Drive and 3272 Controller were damaged as on 5th Oct. 1988. If so, did it result in loss of revenue? If so at what rate and for what period? Is the petitioner entitled to value of the above mentioned items? If so what is the value thereof? c) Whether the petitioner had given the books and the respondent has not returned them? What consequences would follow? d) Whether the petitioner is entitled to amounts as per paras 14 and 15? [Note: The amount claimed in, para 14 are claims No. 3 to 7 and amount claimed in para 15 is claim No. 8 of in the claims extracted above]. e) Whether the petitioner is entitled to interest? If so, at what rate?" 6. HAL filed its counter dated 14-5-1991 before the Arbitrator denying the claims made by the respondent herein and in turn, made the following two claims against Compare: (1) loss of idle skilled man power; (2) Rs. 9,200.00 as storage charges of computer for four months. 7. Both Compare and HAL let in oral and documentary evidence before the Arbitrator after considering the claims, the Arbitrator passed a speaking award dated 22-12-1991 as amended by corrigendum dated 14-1-1992. The particulars of the claim and the award thereon are as follows:- CLAIMS OF COMPARE Claim No. Description of the claim Amount of claim Award 1 Unauthorised deductions from rents for the period 24-7-88 to 12-6-88. Rs. 1,89,175.00 Rejected 2 Amount payable for not giving required notice for the period 23-7-88 to November 88. Rs. 1,91,666.67 Rejected 3 Unauthorised deductions from invoice dated 3-10-88. Rs. 10,580.00 Rs. Rs. 1,89,175.00 Rejected 2 Amount payable for not giving required notice for the period 23-7-88 to November 88. Rs. 1,91,666.67 Rejected 3 Unauthorised deductions from invoice dated 3-10-88. Rs. 10,580.00 Rs. 10,580.00 4 Unauthorised deductions in regard to use of Fortran compiler for the period 9-5-86 to 30-11-86. Rs. 13,493.33 Rs. 13,493.00 5 Unauthorised deductions with respect to use of Fortran compiler in April 87 and May 87. Rs. 8,000.00 Rs .8,000.00 6 Deduction made in rentals for the period of 20 days in August 87. Rs. 1,774.00 Rs. 1,774.00 7 Amount payable for false flooring provided by Compare. Rs. 18,000.00 Rs. 18,000.00 8 Amount payable for unauthorized exploitation of the computer by HAL for the period 20-8-87 to 3-9-87. Rs. 41,250.00 Rejected 9 Damages for not returning computer/parts in working condition for the period 27-4-88 to 22-9-89. Rs. 19,39,666.67 Rejected 10 Damages for failure to make computer available in working condition and for not returning books thereby, rendering the Second computer system useless for further exploitation for the period 5-10-88 to 19-3-90. Rs. 20,10,500.00 Rejected 11 Damages for loss suffered by Compare on account of failure to return the computer/parts in working condition and not returning books made available to HAL from 19-3-90 (date of filing A.C No. 5/1990) till settlement at the restricted to rate of Rs. 1,15,000.00 per month. Rs. 17,50,000.00 Rs. 10,01,036 Total in favour of Compare 10,52,883.33 CLAIMS OF HAL 1 Compensation for loss of idle skilled manpower. ----- Rejected as beyond jurisdiction 2 Storage charges of computer for four months. Rs. 9,200.00 Rs. 9,200.00 8. The arbitrator deducted the sum of Rs. 9,200.00 awarded to HAL from out of Rs. 10,52,883.33 awarded to Compare and held that HAL is liable to pay Rs. 10,43,683.33 to Compare with interest at 12% p.a. on a sum of Rs. 42,647.33 from the date of award till the date of decree by competent Court or till date of payment whichever is earlier. Feeling aggrieved by the rejection of its claim Nos. 9 & 10 (for Rs. 19,39,666.67 & Rs 20,10,500.00) and aggrieved by the grant of HAL s claim for Rs. 9,200.00 as storage charges, Compare filed A.C. No. 2/1992 on the file of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore for setting aside that part of the award rejecting its claims 9 and 10 and the award allowing claim No. 2 of HAL. 19,39,666.67 & Rs 20,10,500.00) and aggrieved by the grant of HAL s claim for Rs. 9,200.00 as storage charges, Compare filed A.C. No. 2/1992 on the file of the City Civil Judge, Bangalore for setting aside that part of the award rejecting its claims 9 and 10 and the award allowing claim No. 2 of HAL. Feeling aggrieved by the award in regard to claims 3 to 7 & 11 (Rs. 10,580.00, Rs. 13,493.33, Rs. 8,000.00, Rs. 1,774.00, Rs. 18,000.00 and Rs. 10,01,036.00) of Compare, and disallowance of its first claim, HAL filed A.C. No. 6/1992 before the City Civil Court, Bangalore for setting aside the award, to that extent. 9. After hearing, the Court below, by its common order dated 23-7-1992, dismissed both the petitions in A.C. NOS. 2 & 6 of 1992 and directed that the award of the Arbitrator be made a rule of the Court and a decree be drawn up in terms of the said award. 9.1. Feeling aggrieved HAL has filed these two appeals. MFA No. 2100/1992 is filed by HAL against the decision in A.C. NO. 2/ 1992 directing that the award of the Arbitrator be made a rule of the Court. MFA No. 2098/1992 is filed by HAL challenging the rejection of A.C. No. 6/1992 filed by it. 9.2. Even though in the appeal memo, a challenge is made in regard to acceptance of claims 3 to 7 of Compare by the Arbitrator, HAL did not seriously dispute the correctness of the award on these claims of Compare aggregating to Rs. 42,647.33, nor the award made on its (HAL's) claim No. 1, having regard to the fact that valid reasons have been assigned by the Arbitrator for allowing the said claims. HAL however seriously disputed allowing of claim No. 11 for Rs. 10,01,036.00. 9.3. In MFA No. 2098/1992, Compare has filed cross objections under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC in so far as rejection of its claims 9 & 10 aggregating to Rs. 39,50,166.67. 10. In view of the appeals and cross objections, following points arise for consideration: "1) Whether award of the Arbitrator accepting claim No. 11 of Compare is liable to set aside as contended by HAL. 2) Whether the rejection of claim 9 & 10 of Compare is liable to be set aside, as contended by Compare. 39,50,166.67. 10. In view of the appeals and cross objections, following points arise for consideration: "1) Whether award of the Arbitrator accepting claim No. 11 of Compare is liable to set aside as contended by HAL. 2) Whether the rejection of claim 9 & 10 of Compare is liable to be set aside, as contended by Compare. 3) Whether the decision of the Court below that award of the arbitrator be made a rule of the Court requires to be interfered with?" 11. It is necessary to bear in mind the principles relating to interference in awards of Arbitrators by Courts, before examining the points arising for decision in these appeals. 11.1. It is well settled that in a proceeding to set aside the award, a Court does not sit in appeal over the award of the Arbitrator, nor call it reappreciate evidence. The award can be interfered where the Arbitrator misconducts himself or the proceeding. An error of law on the face of the award is a ground for setting aside the award. A reasonal award can be interfered with, if it is based on an unsound or erroneous proposition of law. Where the award is based on inconsistent findings, or where it is irrational and arbitrary interference is permissible State of Orissa and Another Vs. Kalinga Construction Co. (P) Ltd., AIR 1971 SC 1646 and K.P. Poulose Vs. State of Kerala and Another, AIR 1975 SC 1259 . 11.2. IN Associated Engineering Company Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh, 1991 (4) SCC 93 the Supreme Court stated what the Arbitrator cannot do and what Courts can do. It held: An Arbitration cannot widen his jurisdiction by deciding a question not referred to him by the parties or by deciding a question otherwise than in accordance with the contract. He cannot say that he does not care what the contract says. He is bound by it. It must bear his decision. He cannot travel outside its bounds. If he exceeded his jurisdiction by so doing, his award would be liable to be set aside. Evidence of matters not appearing on the face of the award would be admissible to decide whether the arbitrator travelled outside the bounds of the contract and exceeded his jurisdiction. In order to see what the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator is, it is open to the Court to see what dispute was submitted to him. Evidence of matters not appearing on the face of the award would be admissible to decide whether the arbitrator travelled outside the bounds of the contract and exceeded his jurisdiction. In order to see what the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator is, it is open to the Court to see what dispute was submitted to him. If that is not clear from the award, it is open to the Court to have recourse to outside sources. The Court can look at the affidavits and pleadings of the parties; the Court can look at the agreement itself. "If the arbitrator commits an error in the construction of the contract, that is an error within his jurisdiction. But if he wanders outside the contract and deals with matters not allotted to him, he commits a jurisdictional error. Such error going to his jurisdiction can be established by looking into material outside the award. Extrinsic evidence is admissible in such cases because the dispute is not something which arises under or in relation to the contract or dependent on the construction of the contract or to be determined within the award. The dispute as to jurisdiction is a matter which is outside the award or outside whatever may be said about it in the award. The ambiguity of the award can, in such cases, be resolved by admitting extrinsic evidence. The rationale of this rule is that the nature of the dispute is something which has to be determined outside and independent of what appears in the award. Such jurisdictional error needs to be proved by evidence extrinsic to the award. 11.3. In K.P. Poulose Vs. State of Kerala and Another, AIR 1975 SC 1259 , the Supreme Court held that misconduct under Section 30(a) comprises of legal misconduct which is complete, if the Arbitrator on the face of the award arrive at an inconsistent conclusion even on his own findings or arrives at a decision by ignoring very material documents which throws abundant light on the controversy to help a just and fair decision. 11.4. In Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited Vs. Eastern Engineering Enterprises and Anr, ILR 2000 Raj 834 the Supreme Court held that where the award made by the arbitrator is in excess of his jurisdiction or contrary to the express bar contained in the agreement, it is liable to be set aside. 11.4. In Rajasthan State Mines and Minerals Limited Vs. Eastern Engineering Enterprises and Anr, ILR 2000 Raj 834 the Supreme Court held that where the award made by the arbitrator is in excess of his jurisdiction or contrary to the express bar contained in the agreement, it is liable to be set aside. The Supreme Court also held that the arbitrator cannot ignore law or can act arbitrarily or irrationally in making the award. 11.5. In Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Indian Carbon Ltd., AIR 1988 SC 1340 and in Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board Vs. Unique Erectors (Gujarat) (P) Ltd. and Another, AIR 1989 SC 973 the Supreme Court held that whenever an arbitrator is required to give reasons for the award, he is not required to write a detailed judgment as is done by a Court of law. The Supreme Court explained that what is necessary is that the arbitrator should set out what, on his view of the evidence, did or did not happen and should explain succinctly why, in the light of what happened, he has reached his decision and what the decision is, the Supreme Court also held that the Court can set aside the award when there is no evidence at all to support the conclusion or where the award is based upon any legal proposition which is erroneous. The Supreme Court further held that reasonableness as the award is not for the Court to consider unless the award is per se preposterous or absurd. 11.6. In Industrial Development Corporation of Orissa Ltd. Vs. Jajodia (Overseas) Pvt. Ltd., JT (1993) 1 SC 334 the Supreme Court explained a reasoned award as: - "A speaking or reasoned award is one which discusses or set- out the reasons which led the arbitrator to make the award. Setting out the conclusions upon the questions or issues that arise in the arbitration proceedings without discussing the reasons for coming to these conclusions does not make an award a reasoned or speaking award." 11.7. In Raipur Development Authority and Others Vs. Chokhamal Contractors and Others, AIR 1990 SC 1426 . Setting out the conclusions upon the questions or issues that arise in the arbitration proceedings without discussing the reasons for coming to these conclusions does not make an award a reasoned or speaking award." 11.7. In Raipur Development Authority and Others Vs. Chokhamal Contractors and Others, AIR 1990 SC 1426 . the Supreme Court held that arbitrator is under no obligation to give reasons in support of the decision reached by him unless under the arbitration agreement is required to give reasons; and if the arbitrator gives reasons in support of the award, it is open to the Court to set aside the award if it finds any error of law apparent on the face of the record by giving reasons. Subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court have reiterated that while detailed reasons are not expected from the arbitrator, such reasons as would indicate that the arbitrator had applied his mind to the question and has considered the matter, are necessary. 11.8. In this case, the arbitration agreement (clause 7 of the agreement dated 5-11-1987) requires the arbitrator to give a reasoned award in writing. Keeping the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court in view, we will now examine the reasoned award made on claims 9,10,11 of Compare and CLAIM No. 2 of HAL. Re: Claim No. 9 of Compare: 12. Compare has claimed Rs. 19,39,666.37 as damages, calculated at the rate of Rs. 1,15,000.00 per month for the period 27.4.1988 to 22.9.1989. According to Compare, the computer (IBM/370/158) had been insured with Oriental Insurance Co., Ltd., only against loss of equipment, that when the computer stopped working on 27.4.1988, to facilitate its working, Compare provided a fresh CPU Disk drive and 3272 controller valued at Rs. 1750,000/- and restored it to working condition on 12.6.1988, that its computer which was the subject matter of the insurance policy, was not available for exploitation between 27-4-1988 to 22.9.1989 (the date on which the Insurer Settled the claim of Compare); that the Insurance company settled the claim of Compare, by reimbursing partial value of the computer; that it was not reimbursed the loss of rentals at Rs. 1,15,000.00 per month from 27-4-1988 to 22-9-1989 (vide para 16 of the claim petition). But in the Annexure to the claim petition Compare has given the reason for the claim as "not returning the computer parts thereof in working condition". 13. 1,15,000.00 per month from 27-4-1988 to 22-9-1989 (vide para 16 of the claim petition). But in the Annexure to the claim petition Compare has given the reason for the claim as "not returning the computer parts thereof in working condition". 13. The Arbitrator did not accept the claim of Compare that when the computer went out of order on 27.4.1988, it replaced it by a separate system thereby substituting the damaged system with a new system resulting in loss by disuse of a system. The Arbitrator has held that there was no wholesale substitution of the system and what Compare did was to merely fulfil its business obligation of restoring the system which had gone out of order to it" original working condition and HAL is in no way concerned with the repairs effected or parts substituted, as under the contract, Compare was bound to make available the system in working condition; and therefore, mere by substitution by Compare of certain parts in the computer to make it functional, did not mean that there was a change in the system or that there was loss of income in regard to one system from 27.4.1988 to 22.9.1989. In fact Compare have categorically stated in its letter dated 11.9.1989, that it does not have any claim against HAL in regard to the damage to the IBM/370/158 system on 27.4.1988. The Arbitrator has also noted that the insurance company has met the claim raised by the Compare in regard to the damage to the computer and therefore, there is absolutely no merit in the claim of the Compare. We do not find any error in the said reasoning nor has the Compare been able to point out any error in the rejection of the said claim. Re. Claim No. 10 of Compare: 14. Compare has made a claim of Rs. 20,10,500.00 as damages being the loss of rentals on the computer at the rate of Rs. 1,15,000.00 per month for the period 5.10.1988 to 19.3.1990 (date of filing A.S. No. 5/1990) on the ground that Second Computer which was made available to HAL had been damaged (vide para 17 of the claim petition). Compare has made a claim of Rs. 20,10,500.00 as damages being the loss of rentals on the computer at the rate of Rs. 1,15,000.00 per month for the period 5.10.1988 to 19.3.1990 (date of filing A.S. No. 5/1990) on the ground that Second Computer which was made available to HAL had been damaged (vide para 17 of the claim petition). But in the annexure to the claim petition, Compare has stated that the amount is payable on account of not returning the second computer/parts thereof in working condition and also has not returning the books, thereby rendering the second computer system useless for further exploitation. 15. The arbitrator has held that the contract of lease of the computer under agreement dated 5.11.1987 came to an end on 4.10.1988 and HAL's responsibility in respect of the computer came to an end after the working hours on 4.10.1988. The Arbitrator has also held that Compare has sufficient notice to make alternative arrangement to hire the computer to any third party. Merely because the Compare did not identify or find an alternative hirer and consequently, did not make any attempt to shift the computer from the premises of HAL or put it to any alternative use, on the expiry of the lease period as at the end of 4.10.1988, Compare cannot claim any loss of earnings from HAL. The Arbitrator also found that Compare at its own volition allowed the computer to be stored and located in the premises of HAL and in fact, HAL was a reluctant custodian of the computer and therefore, if at all there was any loss of earning to Compare, it was its own making and responsibility for which HAL cannot be made liable. Consequently, the claim has been rejected as not justified. 16. Here again, the reasoning of the Arbitrator is sound and does not call for interference. It is not in dispute that agreement dated 5.11.1987 between the parties was for hiring the computer for a period of one year and the said period expired on 4.10.1988. There was no extension of the said agreement. HAL had also made it clear that it will not be extend the hiring. In the circumstances, Compare ought to have removed the computer on 5.10.1988 and dealt with it in any manner it deemed fit. There was no extension of the said agreement. HAL had also made it clear that it will not be extend the hiring. In the circumstances, Compare ought to have removed the computer on 5.10.1988 and dealt with it in any manner it deemed fit. There is no evidence that as at the end of the contract period, that is at the end of 4.10.1998, the computer had stopped functioning. At all events that is not relevant, when the agreement period came to an end on 4.10.1988 and there was no extension, the question of HAL being made liable to pay rental charges or otherwise for the period 5.10.1988 to 19.3.1990 or any other date, does not arise. The Arbitrator has rightly rejected the claim and the said order does not call for interference. Re: Claim No. 11 of Compare: 17. This claim of Compare is described in Para 19(f) of the claim petition as follows: "Further the petitioner is entitled to Rs. 1,15,000/- per month from 19.3.1990, the date of filing AS No. 5./1990, till the day the conditions in para 18 are satisfied or else value of the substitute items of the computer is restored, i.e., Rs. 17,50,000". In para 18, Compare listed the conditions to be satisfied as: (a) HAL furnishing the books to enable erection and commissioning: (b) Pay for such erection and testing of the computer, and (c) The computer being set right. In para 13, Compare gave the need for Books as follows: "It must be stated that once the computer had to be removed, it had to be erected somewhere else and commissioned. For the purchase of erecting and commissioning various books are required. The respondent who had collected the relevant books had not even returned them which has prevented further erecting, testing and commissioning anywhere else. As on date the computer system is not erected and commissioned. One of the primary reasons for the non-erection and non-commissioning of the computer system is because of the basic books for such erection and commissioning have not been returned by the respondent to the petitioner. According to Compare, only when the said conditions were satisfied, the liability of HAL will continue till the date on which the value of the second computer is paid. According to Compare, only when the said conditions were satisfied, the liability of HAL will continue till the date on which the value of the second computer is paid. In the Annexure to the claim petition, Compare stated that the claim is on account also suffered due to the computer and books being not available to it on account of HAL not returning the computer in working condition and in not returning the Books." 18. As noticed above, the contract of lease/hiring came to an end on 4.10.1988. Compare was therefore bound to remove the computer from the premises of HAL on 5.10.1988. It did not do so and took back the computer system only on 4.2.1989. According to HAL, the computer was in working condition till the last date i.e., on 4.10.1988; and that it is not aware whether it was not in working condition on 4.2.1989 and even assuming that the computer became defective subsequent to 4.10.1988, it cannot in any way be made responsible for such alleged defect. 19. The Arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,01,036/- under this head to Compare. This amount is not awarded as rent at Rs. 1,15,000.00 per month for the period commencing from 19.3.1990, but as the value of the computer itself. According to the arbitrator, the claim is for payment of damages for the loss suffered due to computer and books not being made available to Compare, at the rate of Rs. 1,15,000.00 per month from 19.3.1990 to date of settlement limited to Rs. 17,50,000/-. If the claim is for damages at the rate of Rs. 1,15,000/- per month from 19.3.1990 onwards and not for the value of the computer, it is not clear how the arbitrator could have awarded Rs. 10,01,036.00 as the value of computer. The reasoning given by the arbitrator for awarding the said amount is rather strange. The said reasoning is extracted below: "However, it was not proved by the respondents (HAL) that all the books and manuals required for the proper erection of the computer after it was to be removed from the premises of the defendants, were made available to enable the plaintiffs (Compare) to erect the same at a different place. This was the major fault on the part of respondents. This was the major fault on the part of respondents. It is also not proved beyond shadow of doubt by the respondents that all the books and manuals were returned to the plaintiffs. No unqualified receipt was taken from the plaintiffs for the return of the books and manuals. All the facts have compounded the disuse of the computer over a long period and the respondents should accept part of the responsibility for the deterioration of the computer. The respondents had obtained the manuals for the purpose of day to day use and could have exhibited more than cavalry interest in the safety and preservation of these books and manuals. Ultimately the fact is that some of the manuals were not returned. Due to this lapse of the respondents the computer was a dead loss. The field officers of the respondents should have realized their contractual obligation for the return of the books and manuals which were only borrowed for their temporary use during the period of contract only. I therefore award part of the claim to the extent of Rs. 10,01,036.00 as the extent of loss suffered by the plaintiffs on this item." (emphasis supplied) Thereafter, he has indicated how he arrived at the said figure. He took the value of the second hand computer imported on 6.7.1986 as Rs. 11,21,036.00 and gave credit for the salvage value at Rs. 1,20,000.00 and determined the loss as Rs. 10,01,036.00. 20. HAL has contended that all Books/Manuals except two were taken back by Compare, as evident from the material gate passes produced by HAL; that two Books which were not taken were dispatched by registered parcel; that its witnesses Venkataraman and Jalaluddin had specifically given evidence to that effect; that the Arbitrator has not considered either the oral or documentary evidence in this connection and has proceeded on a value assumption that some manuals were not returned without any factual basis. It is also contended that even assuming that any manual was not returned what could be claimed or awarded is the value of the manuals and not the value of the computer and under no circumstances, the arbitrator could have awarded the value of the computer on the ground that some manual was not returned. It is also contended that even assuming that any manual was not returned what could be claimed or awarded is the value of the manuals and not the value of the computer and under no circumstances, the arbitrator could have awarded the value of the computer on the ground that some manual was not returned. Reliance is placed on the principles relating to award of damages contained in Section 73 of the contract Act, 1872 which provides that the quantum of damages could only be with reference to the loss which naturally arose in the usual course of things from such breach and damages cannot be granted for any indirect or remote loss; and that there is a duty on the part of the person claiming damages to mitigate the loss by taking all necessary steps which existed for remedying the inconvenience or loss caused by non-performance. It is contended that there is no pleading or evidence to show the value of the manual which is alleged to be not returned nor about the steps taken by Compare to secure the such manual. 21. We have carefully examined the reasoning of the Arbitrator in regard to the award on claim No. 11. We are clear that the award suffers from errors apparent on the face of it, as also inconsistencies and arbitrariness. We, will refer to them briefly. 22. A close comparison of claim Nos. 10 & 11 discloses that they are of the same nature, but relate to different periods. Claim No. 10 is for damages for the computer not being available between 5-10-1988 to 19-3-1990. The reason given for the claim is "amount payable for not returning the computer/parts thereof in working condition and also for not returning the books ........". Claim No. 11 is also for payment of damages for loss suffered "due to computer part thereof in working condition and not returning the Books" for the subsequent period that is from 19-3-1990. Claim No. 10 was rejected by recording a finding that "if at all there has been any loss of earnings to the plaintiffs, it is their own making and responsibility for which respondents are not liable". Claim No. 10 was rejected by recording a finding that "if at all there has been any loss of earnings to the plaintiffs, it is their own making and responsibility for which respondents are not liable". When the nature of the claim is the same and the reason for making the claim is same, the Arbitrator having rejected the claim (claim No. 10) for the first period, could not have allowed the claim No. 11 for the second period. As allowing of claim No. 11, is contrary to Ms own decision on claim No. 10, it amounts to recording inconsistent findings. 23. Compare has listed the disputes (points of reference) that arose for consideration, in para 22 of the claim petition which were referred to adjudication (extracted in para 5 above). The second dispute and third dispute requires the Arbitrator to give a finding as to whether the items allegedly substituted on 12-6-1988 namely, (CPU, Disk Drive and 3272 Controller) were damaged as on 5-10-1988; if so, did it result in loss of revenue; and if so, at what, rate and for what period? Is the petitioner entitled to value of the said items and if so, what is the value thereof? and whether Compare had given the Books and HAL had failed to return them and what are the consequences if the Books were not returned. Thus, the attention of the Arbitrator was pointedly drawn to crux of the dispute which is the subject matter of claim No. 11. That is, Compare contending that the computer in question was not in working condition when the contract period ended on 4.10.1988 and books were not returned; and HAL contending that as at the end of 4-10-1988 the computer was in working condition and that they had returned all Books/manuals. But the Arbitrator glossed over the matter and did not answer the said questions. In the preamble to the award, the Arbitrator has clearly stated that in the claim petition, Compare wanted the issues/points mentioned in para 22 of the claim statement to be answered and has stated that details of the award may be read as answer to the points/issues so raised. In the preamble to the award, the Arbitrator has clearly stated that in the claim petition, Compare wanted the issues/points mentioned in para 22 of the claim statement to be answered and has stated that details of the award may be read as answer to the points/issues so raised. But, a careful reading of the award, shows that arbitrator has not answered the two questions as to whether the computer was in working condition or not in working condition as en 5-10-1988 and what are the Books/manuals which were not returned and if so, whether it resulted in any loss to Compare and if so, the quantum thereof. It is thus clear that the arbitrator, without answering the relevant and crucial points which are the basis of claim No. 11, has decided the matter in an arbitrary and irrational manner. On this ground also, the decision on claim No. 11 requires interference. 24. It should also be noticed that when the claim of this nature is raised, it is for Compare to plead and prove as to what were the manuals and books that were given and what were the books and manuals that were returned by HAL and which books and manuals were not returned by HAL and what was the position of the computer without such books and manuals that have not been returned. These aspects were not considered by the arbitrator. When it was for the Compare to prove these aspects, the arbitrator has strangely observed that it is for the HAL to prove beyond shadow of doubt that all the Books and manuals have been returned and to obtain an "unqualified receipt" for having returned the books and manuals. In the absence of specific particulars as to the books and manuals which were not returned according to Compare and in the absence of any evidence to show that in the absence of such books and manuals, the computer was a total loss, the arbitrator obviously could not have treated the computer as a dead loss or total loss. 25. HAL all along contended that all the books had been collected by Compare and two books which were not collected by Compare were returned by registered parcel and the same was acknowledged by the Compare. This has also stated in the evidence of HAL. 25. HAL all along contended that all the books had been collected by Compare and two books which were not collected by Compare were returned by registered parcel and the same was acknowledged by the Compare. This has also stated in the evidence of HAL. Inspite of such specific contention, neither in the claim statement nor in the reply statement, nor in the evidence, Compare disclosed what were the books that were not returned, their value and availability and how non -returning of those books came in the way, of Compare erecting or using the computer. Therefore, making a vague claim that books/ manuals were not returned and therefore computer could not be used and that therefore, it was entitled to damages at the rate of Rs. 1,15,000.00 per month or the value of the computer itself, is too remote and indirect a claim to be countenanced. 26. Even assuming that any Manual was not returned, the arbitrator had completely lost sight of the principles relating to damages and has violated the provisions of Section 73 of the Contract Act which bars grant of damages for remote or indirect loss and which casts an obligation on Compare to mitigate the loss. The three principles are: (a) The damages must be such as may fairly and reasonably be considered as arising naturally, that is, according to the usual course of things from the breach; (b) The damages must fairly be such as could have been in contemplation of both parties at the time they made the contract and cannot include compensation for remote or indirect loss of damage; and (c) The party complaining of breach owes the duty to take all reasonable steps to mitigate the loss consequent upon the breach and should show that he did not possess the means of remedying the inconvenience caused by the non performance. The claimant/plaintiff cannot claim compensation for loss which was due to his own failure to behave reasonably after the breach or negligence. 27. The claimant/plaintiff cannot claim compensation for loss which was due to his own failure to behave reasonably after the breach or negligence. 27. If a manual was given along with the computer hired to HAL, on the expiry of lease period, if the computer is returned and manual is not returned, what could be claimed is the value of the manual and not value of the computer, unless there is pleading and proof to show that it is not possible to secure such manual or their efforts to secure such manual were not successful and that in the absence of manual, it is impossible to use the computer. There is neither pleading nor evidence to that effect. Further if any manual is not returned, claiming the cost of computer is too remote a loss. Therefore, having regard to the principles under Section 73, what could be claimed or what could have been awarded is only the value of manual and not the value of computer. The Arbitrator therefore committed an error in awarding the value of computer as damages for alleged non-return of the manual even assuming such manual was not returned. 28. The Arbitrator has stated that on account of non-return of the manuals, HAL should accept a part of responsibility for deterioration of the computer. But, he, while awarding the damages, has awarded total value of the computer, less salvage value i.e. HAL has been made responsible wholly and not in part. This is another error. 29. The Arbitrator has stated that unqualified receipt was not taken from Compare by HAL in regard to the books and materials, and HAL has not proved beyond shadow of doubt that all books and manuals were returned. HAL has categorically contended that all Books/Manuals were returned. Compare, being the claimant, was, therefore bound to establish by evidence as to what were the manuals/ books that were delivered to HAL; that what were the books/manuals which were not returned; and what efforts were made by them to secure such manuals/books either from the supplier or other sources; and that such manual/books were material for the purpose of either re-erecting the computer or using the computer. Such burden is not discharged by Compare who has claimed damages. The Arbitrator has wrongly placed the onus on HAL,. 30. Hence the award on claim No. 11 of Compare ought to have been rejected. Such burden is not discharged by Compare who has claimed damages. The Arbitrator has wrongly placed the onus on HAL,. 30. Hence the award on claim No. 11 of Compare ought to have been rejected. Re: Claim No. 2 of HAL: 31. Claim No. 2 relates to charges claimed by HAL for the period of four months in regard to the computer. It is admitted that the contract expired as at the end of 4-10-1988 and, the computer was taken back only on 4-2-1989 i.e., after the period of four months. In the circumstances, HAL has made a claim of Rs. 9,200.00 as it was occupying valuable space and the Arbitrator, after considering the claim, has allowed it on the ground that computer was left in the premises of HAL. Compare has not been able to make out any error in the awarding of the said claim. 32. We will now refer to the manner in which this aspect has been dealt with by the Court below. Unfortunately the Court below which considered the matter, has not followed the legal principles applicable in regard to challenge to arbitration awards. The Court below has gone off at a tangent and has virtually considered the matter as if sitting in appeal over the award and has assigned reasons for supporting the award, which were not even referred to by the Arbitrator. Any award can either be sustained or set aside only on the grounds or reasons mentioned in the award itself and not by re-appreciating the evidence and re-examining the issue by considering material not considered by the Arbitrator. A reading of the award of the Arbitrator and the findings of the Court below make it clear that neither the Arbitrator nor the Court below was clear as to whether the claim No. 11 of Compare was being allowed on account of the computer not being in working order as at the end of 4-10-1988 or on account of any books and manuals not being returned. The two issues have been mixed up and that has resulted in an award being made on a claim which is wholly unsustainable. The Court has upheld the award by holding that the claim No(11) related to capital loss and not loss relating to earning and that claims (9) and (10) related to revenue loss. The two issues have been mixed up and that has resulted in an award being made on a claim which is wholly unsustainable. The Court has upheld the award by holding that the claim No(11) related to capital loss and not loss relating to earning and that claims (9) and (10) related to revenue loss. The Court has refused to interfere on the ground that the matter related to appreciation of evidence. The Court referred to the categoric evidence of Venkataraman and Jalaluddin on behalf of HAL that all manuals were returned. It also noticed that there was no evidence to show that any Book/Manual given by Compare was not returned by HAL. But the Court has supported the award on a line of reasoning totally contrary to the finding of the Arbitrator. The Court found that HAL was responsible for any damage to the computer after the lease period, that is after 4-10-1988. We extract below the reasoning of the Court: "It may be noted that the learned arbitrator has awarded the damages not merely for not returning the books and manuals; but as observed already, it was one of the grounds on which the award came to be passed; the main ground was that there was a total loss to the computer system. Infact, the loss was caused to the system. The absence of the books and the manuals was one of the grounds to substantiate the loss and the system. The said books and the manuals were required for operating the system and for checking its functions. It is on record, that on termination of the contract, the lessor could not take back the system without inspecting and checking the same. It was in the premises of the lessee and it should have given the facility to the lessor to inspect and check the system. But till 4-2-1989, the lessee did not provide any facility to the lessor to check and inspect it.. The lessor when checked the system on 4-2-1989, found that the system was damaged and had become a dead loss." But the Arbitrator while dealing with claim (10) had clearly recorded the following finding: "The, Contract for lease of computer came to an end on 4-10-88 and the Respondents responsibility to the contract came to an end after the working hours of 4-10-88. The plaintiffs had enough notice to make alternate arrangements for the subsequent hiring of Computer. There was no evidence of any attempt to find any alternate use for the computer by the plaintiffs and no attempts to shift it elsewhere also. It was on their own violation that the plaintiffs allowed the computer to be stored and located in the premises of the Respondents, so much so, the Respondents became reluctant custodians of the computer. If at all there has been any loss of earnings to the plaintiffs, it is their own making and responsibility for which the respondents are not liable." Hence the findings of the court below are clearly unsustainable in so far as claim no (11) of Compare concerned. 33. In view of the above the matters are disposed of as follows: (i) Both the appeals MFA 2100 and 2098/1992 are allowed in part and cross objections filed by Compare in MFA No. 2098/1992 is dismissed. (ii) AC No. 2/1992 filed by Compare (for setting aside the award regarding its claims No. 9 and 10 and HAL's claim No. 2) is dismissed. (iii) AC No. 6/1992 filed by HAL (for setting aside award reclaims 3 to 7 and 11 of Compare and claim No. 1 of HAL) is allowed in Part, only in regard to award on claim No. 11 of Compare and dismissed in regard to award on other matters. (iv) As a consequence, Award of the arbitrator on claim No. (11) of Compare is set aside and the award is upheld in regard to all other items. (v) Parties to bear their respective costs. 34. It is stated that in pursuance of the interim order granted by this Court on 21-6-1995 as modified on 26-10-1995, HAL has deposited certain amount and Compare has drawn it against furnishing of a bank guarantee. The Compare is directed to re-deposit the amount in excess of what it is entitled to in terms of the modified decree within four months from today failing which it is open to the HAL to invoke the bank guarantee and recover the amount due to it and otherwise recover it by execution of this Judgment.