A. K. SIKRI, J. ( 1 ) THE learned Arbitrator appointed in a dispute between the petitioner and the respondent- DDA has made and published his Award on 4. 8. 1992 which has been filed in this Court. However, the DDA has its reservations about the validity of this Award and, therefore, these objections are filed under Section 30 and 33 of the Act against the said Award. I may say at the outset that though objections are raised qua almost all the claims, most of these objections touch the merits of those claims and do not fall within the ambit and scope of Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act. The Arbitrator has, after hearing the parties in detail and going through the documents, arrived at his conclusions and awarded certain specific amount to the petitioner herein. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent was candid in admitting that it is not for this Court to re-appreciate the evidence and labour to find out whether those findings are erroneous or not. This court is not sitting as Appellate authority. The conclusions and findings of the Arbitrator are final and can be challenged only if there is some error apparent on the face of the record or Arbitrator has misconducted. No such infirmity could be shown. ( 2 ) THE only serious argument raised was qua Claim No. 2 and that needs consideration. Claim No. 2 preferred by the petitioner was for a sum of Rs. 14,66,893. 70p being the balance dues of the work done. The learned arbitrator has awarded a sum of rs. 11,86,039/- against this claim as this amount has been found to be justified. Even in respect of this claim dispute is only qua item no. 1, that too limited to rate at which it is awarded and there is no dispute about the quantity. Item no. l was "sub-grade preparation". Rate payable was Rs. 138. 38/ -. The dispute is as to whether this rate was per sq. mtr. or per 100 sq. mtr. The quantity executed is 6466. 60 sq. mtr. The learned arbitrator has awarded @ Rs. 138. 38 per sq. mtr. and the amount payable reckoning on that comes to Rs. 8,97,564/ -. The contention of the DDA is that the rate of rs. 138. 38 payable was for 100 sq. mtr. mtr. or per 100 sq. mtr. The quantity executed is 6466. 60 sq. mtr. The learned arbitrator has awarded @ Rs. 138. 38 per sq. mtr. and the amount payable reckoning on that comes to Rs. 8,97,564/ -. The contention of the DDA is that the rate of rs. 138. 38 payable was for 100 sq. mtr. and if the contention of the DDA is correct, amount is awarded would be l/100th. e. Rs. 8975. 64p. There is thus a wide variation in the perception. Who is correct is to be seen in the light of contractual provisions. ( 3 ) THE learned arbitrator has, while awarding rate per sq. mtr. given the following reasons: "there is also a dispute regarding the rate of agreement item no. l of sub- grade preparation adopted by the respondents in their bills and as existing in the agreement. The dispute is arising out of the unit of the item. The unit for the rate adopted in the bill is 100 sq. m but the unit existing in the agreement is one sq. m. The respondents have pleaded that the unit for this item in applicable DSR is 100 sq. m and that the amount of the item in the bill of quantities had also been worked out taking the unit as 100 sq. m for the rate given therein. I find that the contractor at the time of submitting his tender had quoted his rate for the work at certain percentage above the rates entered in the B. O. Q. and in accordance in all respects with the specifications etc. The offer was therefore based on the rates entered in the B. O. Q. The rate for item no. l as per schedule of quantities is Rs. 138. 38 per sq. m and hence this is the rate which has to be adopted for finalising the work. Reference to Delhi schedule of rates is not relevant here. So far as payment of running bills is concerned, they are only advance or on account payments. " ( 4 ) THE contention of DDA on the other hand is that there is a clear error in the Award inasmuch as rates of these items are taken from the Delhi Schedule or Rates "d. S. R. 1985". Under Item 17. 1 at Page 242 of DSR-1985 the total quantity shown in the agreement is 27361 sq. " ( 4 ) THE contention of DDA on the other hand is that there is a clear error in the Award inasmuch as rates of these items are taken from the Delhi Schedule or Rates "d. S. R. 1985". Under Item 17. 1 at Page 242 of DSR-1985 the total quantity shown in the agreement is 27361 sq. m @ 138. 38 amounting to Rs. 37,862/- which will show that the unit is 100 sq. m. and not sq. mtr. Moreover under Clause 12. 3 of the agreement the rates have to be derived on the basis of dsr and, therefore, the rates available in the dsr show that the amount was 100 sq. m. and not sq. m as stated therein. It was also submitted that even the running account bills were prepared taking the unit as per 100 sq. m. and the same was recorded in the measurement Book 726 at Page 13 and 4th running account bill recorded in Measurement book 726 at Page 1. Submission was that the Measurement Book wherein first running account bills and 4th running bills were recorded in the aforesaid manner were produced before the learned arbitrator who ignored the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the other hand supported the award by adopting the same reasons as given by the learned Arbitrator. ( 5 ) NO doubt the learned arbitrator has been persuaded by the fact that in the agreement rate of Rs. 138. 38 mentioned is per 1 sq. m. However, the learned arbitrator has failed to appreciate that this was simply a typographical error in the agreement where the figure "100" by mistake was omitted. No doubt normally the Arbitrator is supposed to go by the agreement. However, if it could be pointed out that there was a bona fide omission in not mentioning the figure 100, the Arbitrator should have looked the matter from this angle as well. In order to show that the rate of rs. 138. 38 was per 100 sq. mtr, the DDA produced the following documents:- 1. The rates were derived from DSR which mentioned precisely the same rate, namely, Rs. 138. 38p and the quantity mentioned is that this rate is per 100 sq. m. 2. Total quantity shown in the agreement is 27361 sq. m @ Rs. 138. 38 amounting to Rs. 37,862/ -. mtr, the DDA produced the following documents:- 1. The rates were derived from DSR which mentioned precisely the same rate, namely, Rs. 138. 38p and the quantity mentioned is that this rate is per 100 sq. m. 2. Total quantity shown in the agreement is 27361 sq. m @ Rs. 138. 38 amounting to Rs. 37,862/ -. When total quantity is shown and total amount is also shown, the rate of Rs. 138. 38 could clearly be calculated, namely, it was per 100 sq. m and not per sq. m. This is in the Agreement itself and from this portion of the Agreement it could be clearly inferred that in the item rate of sq. m is wrongly mentioned which should have been per 100 sq. m. 3. Above all, conduct of the parties clinches the issues. Running bills, for the quantities of work done under this item, were prepared on the basis of 100 per sq. m. The petitioner accepted the payment on that basis without any reservation and with clear understanding that basis of payment was correct. ( 6 ) THE cumulative effect of all the aforesaid circumstances and as understood by the parties themselves would show that the rate in question was per 100 sq. m and not per sq. m. It was clearly an after thought action on the part of the petitioner to take advantage of the omission in the agreement at one place, namely, in item no. 1 (though in clause 12. 3 of the agreement the total quantity and total amount payable under this item is shown as correct ). The learned arbitrator should have seen into this game of the petitioner instead of going by the accidental omission in item no. 1 and giving undue benefit to the petitioner by ignoring other relevant clauses of the contract as well as admitted conduct of the parties clearly and rightly understanding the rates as 100 sq. m. Therefore, it can be said that the learned arbitrator has not examined the contractual terms in proper perspective. When there is apparent conflict between the two provisions of the same contract, namely, one at item no. 1and other clause 12. 3 of the agreement recording different rates, it was for the arbitrator to resolve the same. m. Therefore, it can be said that the learned arbitrator has not examined the contractual terms in proper perspective. When there is apparent conflict between the two provisions of the same contract, namely, one at item no. 1and other clause 12. 3 of the agreement recording different rates, it was for the arbitrator to resolve the same. Had he done this exercise, he could have easily found that there is an accidental omission in not mentioning at item No. 1 that the rate is per 100 sq. mt. It is trite law that a party cannot take advantage of clerical mistake and accidental omission and real intention behind the contract is to be gathered. ( 7 ) IT is obvious that there cannot be such a marked difference as the rate ultimately claimed by the petitioner is 100 times more. Therefore, at the time of arguments I put it to learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether the job was such that the rates could be what the petitioner had demanded. The learned counsel could not dispute that the reasonable rate of item was Rs. 138. 38p per sq. m. but kept on harping on the rate mentioned in item no. l on the basis of which he argued that the petitioner was entitled to get the payment. This argument of the petitioner is ill-founded. Granting the claim at such an exorbitant rate would clearly amount to giving unjust premium to the petitioner which law frowns upon. I have, therefore, no hesitation in rejecting the claim as awarded by the learned arbitrator under item no. l of claim no. 2 and modify the award by directing that the award under this item would be rs. 8,975. 64p rather than Rs. 8,97,564/ -. The objections are allowed to this extent. ( 8 ) APPLICATION stands disposed of. CS (OS)No. 3458 of 1992 award as modified as made a rule of the court. Suit is decreed in the above-said terms. Decree be drawn accordingly. If the amount is paid within two months from the date of decree, no further interest would be paid otherwise interest at the rate of 9% per annum is awarded from the date of decree till payment. No costs.