JUDGMENT Valmiki J. Mehta, J. (Oral) FAO No. 282/2013 1. No one appears for the appellant although it is 12.20 PM. 2. This first appeal is filed under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (in short ‘the Act’) challenging the judgment of the trial court dated 25.2.2013 by which the objections filed by the appellant under Section 34 of the Act have been dismissed. 3. The facts of the case are that appellant took loan from the respondent for purchase of a vehicle HR-38E-3539 in the year 2001 and a Vehicle Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement dated 3.11.2001 was entered into. Subsequently, a fresh Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement dated 31.3.2004 was entered into as various loan installments which were to be paid under the agreement dated 3.11.2001 were not paid. A settlement was also entered into thereafter on 31.3.2007, which was however not complied with by the appellant, and consequently arbitration proceedings were invoked and the arbitrator had passed the Award dated 27.9.2010 decreeing the claim of the respondent/lender for an amount of Rs.3,71,602/- alongwith interest at 12% per annum simple. 4. The court below has noted that the appellant did not dispute the signatures on the agreement dated 31.3.2004 and therefore he was liable under the same. The claim was also held to be within limitation because the payment was to be made as per the agreement by 15.5.2007 and therefore the claim petition filed within three years of 15.5.2007 i.e. on 9.10.2009 was within limitation. 5. The court below has also held that once the compromise agreement dated 31.3.2007 fell through, the original terms in the agreement dated 31.3.2004 became enforceable and which contained the arbitration clause. Court below also notes that appellant claimed to have made certain payments, but no proof of such alleged payments was adduced before the arbitrator. 6. The scope of hearing objections under Section 34 of the Act is limited. Awards can only be interfered with if they are against the legal provisions (Section 28(1)(a)) or against contractual provisions (Section 28(3)) or the Award is against the public policy. This is also held by the Supreme Court in the case of O.N.G.C Vs. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003) 5 SCC 705 . 7. Issues of appreciation of evidence and conclusions to be derived from the evidence led, is well within the scope of an arbitrator and courts will not interfere once two views are possible. This is also held by the Supreme Court in the case of O.N.G.C Vs. Saw Pipes Ltd. (2003) 5 SCC 705 . 7. Issues of appreciation of evidence and conclusions to be derived from the evidence led, is well within the scope of an arbitrator and courts will not interfere once two views are possible. If arbitrator accepts one of the two views which is possible by reading of the evidence, there does not exist any perversity for a court hearing objections under Section 34 of the Act to interfere. 8. The facts of the case show that appellant availed of the loan, failed to repay the installments, entered into a fresh agreement subsequently in the year 2004, again failed to repay the loan installments, entered into a settlement on 31.3.2007 and which again he breached by failing to comply with the same by making payment and therefore the arbitrator was justified in awarding the amount of claim which is the amount of due installments alongwith interest. Even interest has been awarded only at a reasonable rate of 12% per annum although the respondent/claimant had claimed interest at 3% per month. 9. In view of the above, there is no merit in the appeal, and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. All pending applications stand disposed of. FAO Nos. 283/13, 284/13, 285/13, 286/13, 287/13, 288/13 & 289/13 The present appeals will be wholly covered by the judgment given in FAO No.282/2013, and the same are also therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. All pending applications stand disposed of.