JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. Petitioner has filed the present application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 against the award made on 17.3.2001 by the Arbitral Tribunal. 2. "Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of the present application are that respondent No. 1- Contractor was awarded by National Hydro-Electric Power Corporation Limited (for short "NHPC") the work of construction of permanent suitable bridge across river Siul, near village Koti on 30.8.1991 on lump sum basis at a total cost of Rs. 131.50 lacs. The work of bridge was to be undertaken in two spans, i.e. one of 53.6 meters cantilever span resting on concrete pier and second 67 meters span resting on tip of cantilever at one end and supported on roller bear bearing on the other end. An agreement between Contractor and NHPC was executed on 19.11.1991 for the revised contract of Rs. 138 lacs. It was further revised to Rs. 173 lacs from Rs. 138 lacs on 25.8.1993. The Contractor got the risk of the work covered by the petitioner by effecting its insurance for Rs. 1, 28,34,000/- with 3rd party liability for a period between 15.5.1992 to 31.5.1992. It was extended by another six months upto 30.11.1993 and further extended from 1.12.1993 to 31.1.1994 as per the terms and conditions of the insurance policy as amended by the insurer vide letter dated 1.12.1993. 3. The construction work of bridge was undertaken; however, at about 12 p.m. on 12.12.1993, there was a big bang and 67 meters length of suspended portion being launched with 33.5 meters length of the nose fell down in the river over a height of 50-60 meters. 16 persons died on the spot and 5 persons were grievously injured. The Contractor informed the insurer of the loss occurred at the work vide letter dated 17.1.1994. He made a tentative claim for the apparent loss of Rs. 1,51,30,000/-. 4. The matter was referred to the Arbitral Tribunal. The parties were directed to appear before the Arbitral Tribunal vide order dated 10.11.1998. The parties were afforded opportunity to file their respective additional documents in support of their case. The admission and denial of documents was also done. 5. Claim No. 1 was qua the cost of reconstruction of lost 67 meters span of bridge, i.e. Rs. 1,51,96,286.37/-. The parties were directed to appear before the Arbitral Tribunal vide order dated 10.11.1998. The parties were afforded opportunity to file their respective additional documents in support of their case. The admission and denial of documents was also done. 5. Claim No. 1 was qua the cost of reconstruction of lost 67 meters span of bridge, i.e. Rs. 1,51,96,286.37/-. The learned Tribunal on the basis of the claim statement, rejoinder and the documents came to the conclusion that the Contractor did not take up the reconstruction of the portion of the work. It was got done by allotment of the work to another contractor, namely, Shri Vinay Kumar Gupta at higher rates. The work, as noticed herein above, was awarded by the NHPC to the Contractor for a lump sum payment of Rs. 173 lacs revised cost. It was insured for Rs. 1,18,34,000/- besides Rs. 10,00,000/- for 3rd party liability. Learned Tribunal has taken into consideration the report of Surveyors M/s Mita Marine and General Survey Agencies. The cost of the reconstruction of the same design was worked out at 260 MT and its cost was worked out at Rs. 41,60,000/-. The cost of fabrication, erection and launching was claimed at Rs. 73,25,000/-. The total cost was Rs. 1,14,85,000/-. Adding supervision and contingencies at 5%, i.e. Rs. 5,74,250/-, the amount claimed from the Contractor was Rs. 1,20,69,250/-. However, in view of considered view of the Arbitral Tribunal, the total actual payment made by the NHPC to the Contractor for 120.6 meters was Rs. 1,51,74,000/- and the cost of 67 meters span of bridge lost was Rs. 84,30,000/-. The total loss came to Rs. 62,00,265/-. 6. According to claim No. 2, the Cost of repair, strengthening and replacement of numbers and load testing of 53.6 meters span of the bridge and ultrasound testing of joint was considered for a sum of Rs. 41,37,913/-. The Tribunal on the basis of the figures given in Annexures-II to appendix S & T of the Survey report came to the conclusion that the damage to 53.6 meters span of bridge was Rs. 10.40 lacs and the insurers was liable to pay Rs. 7,14,920/-. 7. According to claim No.3, the cost of balance work, i.e. deck slab, railing, footpath etc. was claimed for Rs. 20,76,000/-. It was rejected by the learned Arbitral Tribunal. 10.40 lacs and the insurers was liable to pay Rs. 7,14,920/-. 7. According to claim No.3, the cost of balance work, i.e. deck slab, railing, footpath etc. was claimed for Rs. 20,76,000/-. It was rejected by the learned Arbitral Tribunal. Thereafter, the Arbitral Tribunal has made award for cost of retrieval of salvage of lost 67 meters span of the bridge including watch ward of retrieved salvage. The net realisation from the salvage according to the Arbitral Tribunal was Rs. 2,99,600/-. 8. The claim for compensation on account of death of workmen was rejected by the Arbitral Tribunal. The Arbitral Tribunal on the basis of evidence oral as well as documentary and survey report has awarded for loss of 67 meters span of the bridge Rs. 62,00,265/-. Compensation for repairs of the damage caused to 53.6 span of the bridge was Rs. 7,64,920/-. Less payment on sale of salvage due from NHPC to the insurer was Rs. 2,99,600/-, less payment of compensation already made by the insurer to NHPC on 14.3.1999 was Rs. 22,64,963/- and the net balance amount of compensation required to be paid by the insurer was Rs. 44,00,622/-. The interest @ 12% per annum was awarded from 1.2.1994 with future interest at the same rate from the date of award till actual payment with cost of Rs. 90,000/-. 9. This Court cannot re-appraise the material on record and substitute its own view as Arbitrator's view. The Arbitrators have applied their mind. The findings recorded by them are based on correct appreciation of evidence and the same cannot be termed as perverse. 10. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Navodaya Mass Entertainment Limited v. J.M. Combines, (2015) 5 SCC 698 have held that even if two views are possible, view taken by the Arbitrator would prevail and reappraisal by the Court is not permissible. Their Lordships have held as under: "(8) In our opinion, the scope of interference of the Court is very limited. Court would not be justified in reappraising the material on record and substituting its own view in place of the Arbitrator's view. Where there is an error apparent on the face of the record or the Arbitrator has not followed the statutory legal position, then and then only it would be justified in interfering with the award published by the Arbitrator. Where there is an error apparent on the face of the record or the Arbitrator has not followed the statutory legal position, then and then only it would be justified in interfering with the award published by the Arbitrator. Once the Arbitrator has applied his mind to the matter before him, the Court cannot reappraise the matter as if it were an appeal and even if two views are possible, the view taken by the Arbitrator would prevail. (See: Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. v. L.K. Ahuja, 2004 5 SCC 109 ; Ravindra & Associates v. Union of India, 2010 1 SCC 80 ; Madnani Construction Corporation Private Limited v. Union of India & Ors., 2010 1 SCC 549 ; Associated Construction v. Pawanhans Helicopters Limited, 2008 16 SCC 128 ; and Satna Stone & Lime Company Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr., 2008 14 SCC 785 .)" 11. Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swan Gold Mining Limited v. Hindustan Copper Limited, (2015) 5 SCC 739 have held that arbitrator's decision is generally considered binding between the parties and, therefore, the power of the court to set aside the award would be exercised only in cases where the court finds that the arbitral award is on the fact of it erroneous or patently illegal or in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Their Lordships have further held that the arbitrator appointed by the parties is the final judge of the facts. The findings of facts recorded by him cannot be interfered with on the ground that the terms of the contract were not correctly interpreted by him. Their Lordships have held as under: "11. Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 corresponds to Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 making a provision for setting aside the arbitral award. In terms of sub-section (2) of Section 34 of the Act, an arbitral award may be set aside only if one of the conditions specified therein is satisfied. The Arbitrator's decision is generally considered binding between the parties and therefore, the power of the Court to set aside the award would be exercised only in cases where the Court finds that the arbitral award is on the fact of it erroneous or patently illegal or in contravention of the provisions of the Act. The Arbitrator's decision is generally considered binding between the parties and therefore, the power of the Court to set aside the award would be exercised only in cases where the Court finds that the arbitral award is on the fact of it erroneous or patently illegal or in contravention of the provisions of the Act. It is a well settled proposition that the Court shall not ordinarily substitute its interpretation for that of the Arbitrator. Similarly, when the parties have arrived at a concluded contract and acted on the basis of those terms and conditions of the contract then substituting new terms in the contract by the Arbitrator or by the Court would be erroneous or illegal. 12. It is equally well settled that the Arbitrator appointed by the parties is the final judge of the facts. The finding of facts recorded by him cannot be interfered with on the ground that the terms of the contract were not correctly interpreted by him. 18. Mr. Sharan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, also challenged the arbitral award on the ground that the same is in conflict with the public policy of India. We do not find any substance in the said submission. This Court, in the case of Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. (supra), observed that the term 'public policy of India' is required to be interpreted in the context of jurisdiction of the Court where the validity of award is challenged before it becomes final and executable. The Court held that an award can be set aside if it is contrary to fundamental policy of Indian law or the interest of India, or if there is patent illegality. In our view, the said decision will not in any way come into rescue of the appellant. As noticed above, the parties have entered into concluded contract, agreeing terms and conditions of the said contract, which was finally acted upon. In such a case, the parties to the said contract cannot back out and challenge the award on the ground that the same is against the public policy. Even assuming the ground available to the appellant, the award cannot be set aside as because it is not contrary to fundamental policy of Indian law or against the interest of India or on the ground of patent illegality. 19. Even assuming the ground available to the appellant, the award cannot be set aside as because it is not contrary to fundamental policy of Indian law or against the interest of India or on the ground of patent illegality. 19. The words "public policy" or "opposed to public policy", find reference in Section 23 of the Contract Act and also Section 34 (2)(b)(ii) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. As stated above, the interpretation of the contract is matter of the Arbitrator, who is a Judge, chosen by the parties to determine and decide the dispute. The Court is precluded from re-appreciating the evidence and to arrive at different conclusion by holding that the arbitral award is against the public policy." 12. Accordingly, there is no merit in the application and the same is rejected, so also the pending applications, if any.