JUDGMENT : Sathish Ninan, J. 1. The respondents in an arbitration proceedings challenge the order-dated 13.08.2010 in O.P (Arb.) No.39 of 1995 of the Sub court, Thiruvananthapuram. Petition under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (for short, “the 1940 Act”) filed by the appellants herein/respondents in the arbitration proceedings and petition filed by the respondent herein/claimant under Section 17 seeking a decree in terms of the award passed by the Arbitrator were considered together in the proceedings. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to according to their status before the Arbitrator, namely ‘claimant’ and ‘respondents’. 2, On 31.08.1983 an agreement was entered into between the claimant and the respondents for the work of ‘KIP RBC formation of Konni Distributory Construction of a road crossing at Ch.500m including approach road’. The time for completion of the work was four months from the date of handing over of the site. The site was handed over on 21.11.1983. The work ought to have been completed on or before 21.03.1984. The time was extended upto 31.10.1984. Dispute arose between the parties. The parties were bound by the terms of the Local Competitive Bidding specification (LCB). Clauses 51 and 52 of LCB provided for arbitration in case of dispute. In terms thereof, the dispute was referred to Arbitrator. The Arbitrator allowed the claims except under one head and granted an award for realisation of Rs.1,93,953/- with 18% interest. In the O.P (Arb), the learned Sub Judge interfered with the award in part and set aside the same with respect to one head of claim, viz., damages for alleged breach committed by the respondents. The claimant was held entitled to Rs.92,703/- with interest at 12% per annum. Dissatisfied with the order this appeal is filed by the respondents. 3. Heard the learned senior Government Pleader for the appellants/respondents and Shri P.B.Sahasranaman learned counsel for the claimant/respondent. 4. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the arbitration proceedings were not maintainable for two reasons. Firstly, in terms clause 52 of the LCB conditions, the Arbitrator needs to be appointed within 30 days after expiry of defects liability period. If it is not done within that period, then claim cannot be brought for arbitration. 4. The learned Government Pleader would submit that the arbitration proceedings were not maintainable for two reasons. Firstly, in terms clause 52 of the LCB conditions, the Arbitrator needs to be appointed within 30 days after expiry of defects liability period. If it is not done within that period, then claim cannot be brought for arbitration. He would contend that the award in question was abandoned by the claimant on 31.10.1984, the contract was terminated on 29.10.1987 and the defects liability period (6 months) for the work that was executed expired on 29.04.1988. The request for appointment of Arbitrator was made only on 02.01.1990 and the Arbitrator was appointed only on 26.05.1990. The thirty days’ period within which the Arbitrator was to be appointed expired on 29.05.1988. Accordingly he contends that the proceedings are not maintainable. Here it would be relevant to refer to clauses 51 and 52 of the LCB conditions: “51. SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES: If the contractor considers any work demanded of him to be outside the requirements of the contract, or considers any drawings, record or ruling of the authority executing agreement on any matter in connection with or arising out of the contract or the carrying out of work to be unacceptable, he shall promptly ask the authority executing agreement in writing for written instructions or decision. Thereupon the authority executing agreement shall give his written instructions or decision within a period of thirty days of such request. Upon receipt of the written instructions or decision the Contractor shall promptly proceed without delay to comply with such instructions or decision. If the authority executing agreement fails to give his instructions or decision in writing within a period of thirty days after being requested, or if the contractor is dissatisfied with the instructions or decision of the authority executing agreement, the contractor may within thirty days after receiving the instructions or decision appeal to Superintending Engineer who shall afford an opportunity to the contractor to be heard and to offer evidence in support of his appeal. This officer shall give a decision within a period of sixty days after the contractor has given the said evidence in support of his appeal. This officer shall give a decision within a period of sixty days after the contractor has given the said evidence in support of his appeal. If the Contractor is dissatisfied with this decision, the contractor within a period of thirty days from receipt of the decision shall indicate his intention to refer the dispute to arbitration, failing which the said decision shall be final and conclusive.” 52. ARBITRATION: All the disputes or differences in respect of which the decision has not been final and conclusive shall be referred for arbitration to a sole arbitrator appointed as follows:- Within thirty days of receipt of notice from the Contractor of his intention to refer the dispute to arbitration the Chief Engineer, Projects III shall send to the contractor a list of three officers of the rank of Superintending Engineer or higher, who have not been connected with the work under this contract. The Contractor shall within fifteen days of receipt of this list select and communicate to the Chief Engineer the name of one officer from the list who shall then be appointed as the sole arbitrator. If contractor fails to communicate his selection of name, within the stipulated period, the Chief Engineer shall without delay select one officer from the list and appoint him as the sole arbitrator. If the Chief Engineer fails to send such a list within thirty days, as stipulated the Contractor shall send a similar list to the Chief Engineer within fifteen days. The Chief Engineer shall then select one officer from the list and appoint him as the sole arbitrator within fifteen days. If the Chief Engineer fails to do so, the Contractor shall communicate to Chief Engineer the name of one officer from the list, who shall then be the sole arbitrator. The arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the provision of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940 or any statutory modification thereon. The decision of the sole arbitrator shall be final and binding on the parties thereon. The arbitrator shall determine the amount of costs of arbitration to be awarded to either parties. Performance under the contract shall continue during the arbitration proceeding and payments due to the Contractor shall not be withheld unless they are subject-matter of the arbitration proceedings. All awards shall be in writing and in case of awards amounts to Rs. The arbitrator shall determine the amount of costs of arbitration to be awarded to either parties. Performance under the contract shall continue during the arbitration proceeding and payments due to the Contractor shall not be withheld unless they are subject-matter of the arbitration proceedings. All awards shall be in writing and in case of awards amounts to Rs. 1.00 lakh and above such awards shall state the reasons for the amount awarded. Neither party is entitled to bring a claim to arbitration if the arbitrator has not been appointed before the expiry of thirty days after defect liability period.” 5. In State v. E.A. Cheriyan Kunju ( AIR 1997 Ker. 1 ) a Bench of this court considered these two clauses and held that the two clauses, 51 and 52 are supplementary to each other. It was held that only such disputes or differences in respect of which the decision taken by the competent authority under clause 51 has not become final and conclusive, are referable for arbitration under clause 52. Therefore the disputes are initially to be taken up with the departmental authorities in terms of clause 51 and the unresolved disputes alone are referable for arbitration under clause 52. In the case at hand the records reveal that the claimant had raised claims before the authority executing agreement and the superintending Engineer. It was on the failure of the departmental authorities to settle the disputes the matter was taken up in terms of clause 52 seeking appointment of Arbitrator, which has been done by the Chief Engineer being satisfied that the matter is not resolved by the departmental authorities. Therefore, it is not open for the respondents to contend that the arbitration proceedings are bad. Further, clause 25 provides for the issuance of a certificate of completion. Clause 18 provides that the defects liability period commences from the date of certificate of completion. Since the certificate of completion was not issued, it could not be held that the defects liability period is over and that the claim is not brought for arbitration within time. The contention deserves to be rejected. 6. The next contention urged is with reference to clause 3 of schedule I to the 1940 Act, which provides thus: “3. Since the certificate of completion was not issued, it could not be held that the defects liability period is over and that the claim is not brought for arbitration within time. The contention deserves to be rejected. 6. The next contention urged is with reference to clause 3 of schedule I to the 1940 Act, which provides thus: “3. The arbitrators shall make their award within four months after entering on the reference or after having been called upon to at by notice in writing from any party to the arbitration agreement or within such extended time as the Court may allow.” Learned Government Pleader would contend that the award has been passed beyond the period stipulated in clause 3 and hence is bad. The time for passing the order as stipulated under the 1940 Act could be extended only by the court. Since that has not been done, the award is unsustainable, is his contention. Here sub-clause (2) of Section 28 of the 1940 Act is significant. It reads thus: “28. Power to Court only to enlarge time for making award:- (1) …………… (2) Any provision in an arbitration agreement whereby the arbitrators or umpire may, except with the consent of all the parties to the agreement, enlarge the time for making the award, shall be void and of no effect.” As provided therein, the time for making the award can be extended by the Arbitrator with the consent of all the parties to the agreement. Here the award in question narrates that “The time for making and publishing the award has been extended upto 15.02.1995 by consent and agreement of both parties”. The award further states that “Both the parties have participated in the arbitration proceedings without any demur or protest”. It could not be established before us that the said observations of the Arbitrator are erroneous. We notice that there is no personal allegation of bias against the Arbitrator. Under such circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement made by the Arbitrator in the award regarding the course of the proceedings. Therefore, the said contention of the respondents is also liable to be turned down. 7. Now coming to the merits of the claims, we are concious of the notes of circumspection expressed by the Apex Court repeatedly regarding the scope of an appeal under Section 39 of the 1940 Act. Therefore, the said contention of the respondents is also liable to be turned down. 7. Now coming to the merits of the claims, we are concious of the notes of circumspection expressed by the Apex Court repeatedly regarding the scope of an appeal under Section 39 of the 1940 Act. The Apex Court in umpteen number of cases has cautioned that the Arbitrator is the final arbiter for the dispute between the parties and award cannot be challenged on the ground that the Arbitrator has drawn his own conclusion or has failed to appreciate the facts. If the view taken by the Arbitrator is a possible one, the award is not to be interfered with by the court. The reasonableness of the reasons of the Arbitrator cannot be gone into by the court. Reappraisal of the evidence is not permissible unless there is total perversity in the award or is based on a wrong proposition of law. If two views are possible the court is not to interfere with the award. The scope of interference by court in regard to arbitral awards is limited.. If the view of Arbitrator is a possible one, the award or the reasoning cannot be examined. The court is not sitting over appeal on the findings and decisions of the Arbitrator. The Apex Court has held that the unreasonableness of an award is not a matter for the court to consider unless the award is per se preposterous or absurd (See Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. union of India and Another ([1999] 9 SCC 449), Ispat Engineering & Foundry works, B.S.City, Bokaro V. Steel Authority of India Ltd., B.S.City, Bokaro ([2001] 6 SCC, 347), Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. v. Saw Pipes Ltd. ([2003] 5 SCC 705), Kwality Manufacturing Corporation v. Central Warehousing Corporation ([2009] 5 SCC 142], Madhya Pradesh Housing Board v. Progressive writers and Publishers ([2009] 5 SCC 678), O.P.Pathrose v. State of Kerala and Another ([2010] 12 SCC 100), Ravindra Kumar Gupta and company v. Union of India ([2010] 1 scC 409), State of Rajasthan v. Puri Construction Co. Ltd. ([1994] 6 SCC 485), G.Ramachandra Reddy and Company v. Union of India and Another ([2009] 6 SCC 414), Continental Construction Ltd. v. state of U.P. ([2003] 8 SCC 4), State of U.P. v. Allied Constructions ([2003) 7 SC 396), Bhagavati Oxygen Ltd., v. Hindustan Copper Ltd. ([2005] 6 SCC 462) and Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. M/s. Jagan Nath Ashok Kumar and Another ([1987] 4 SCC 497). Bearing the principles in mind we proceed to consider the claims and the respective findings. Claim ‘A’ was for damages for alleged breach of contract committed by the respondents. Though the Arbitrator awarded amounts under the said head, the sub Court in O.P(Arb.) found that the claimant himself has contributed to the delay and further that there is no evidence to prove that any damages have been sustained. Accordingly the award relating to damages under claim ‘A’ was interfered with. It has not been challenged by the claimant. Under claim ‘B’ compensation was claimed for extra expenditure incurred by the claimant on account of transportation of earth to the site for forming the road. The Arbitrator had conducted a site inspection and also verified the M Book and the agreements. The claim for conveyance of 500M3 of earth was accepted by the Arbitrator. It was also found that conveyance by lorry was not feasible due to lack of width of the enbankment. Though the claimant put forward a claim for additional expenditure of Rs.45/M3 the Arbitrator fixed the rate at Rs.30/-M3 under that head. The learned Sub Judge found it to be reasonable. Claim under head ‘C’ was in relation to random rubble work. According to the claimant, the agreed quantity of masonry work was 256M3 and the actual work done was 425.24/-M3. Claim was raised for Rs.725/-M3, for the additional work. In terms of the LCB, for work in excess of 30% quantity, the rates are to be agreed upon. The Arbitrator took note of the fact that the extra work was after the agreed period. The Arbitrator fixed the rate at Rs.395/M3 which was found as just and reasonable by the court below. Claims ‘D’ and ‘E’ related to construction of side drain and retaining wall. Undisputedly, it is an additional work done during the extended time. Claim was raised at the rate of Rs.725/-M3. The Arbitrator fixed the rate at Rs.395/M3 which was found as just and reasonable by the court below. Claims ‘D’ and ‘E’ related to construction of side drain and retaining wall. Undisputedly, it is an additional work done during the extended time. Claim was raised at the rate of Rs.725/-M3. The Arbitrator verified the M Book, correspondence file, work file, etc., and confirmed that it is an extra work and quantity was arrived at as 88.549M3. However, it was found that the quality of the work done was not satisfactory as the required proportion of cement was not utilised. The Arbitrator fixed Rs.395/-M3 but deducted penalty and awarded Rs.34,975/- under the said count. The said finding was affirmed by the court below. The claim under count ‘F’ was rejected by the Arbitrator which has become final. Claim under head ‘G’ was for return of the retention amount and security deposit; The Arbitrator found’ that the defects liability period was over, that the work is completed and accordingly ordered return of the said amounts. It is not interfered with in O.P (Arb.) filed before the Court below. Claim ‘G’ related, to final bill. It was held that an. amount of Rs.575/- is due to the respondents and that the said amount is to be adjusted in the award amount. That finding was not interfered with by the court below. AS regards the claim under head ‘I’, though the Arbitrator awarded interest at the rate of 18%, per annum the court reduced the rate of interest to 12% per annum. In tune with the law laid down by the Apex court in state of Rajasthan and Another v. Ferro Concrete Construction Private Limited ([2009] 12 SCC 1) and A.P. State Trading Corporation Ltd. v. G.V. Malla Reddy and Co. (2010 AIR SCW 6337) and considering the prevailing rate of interest, we feel that interest payable be re-fixed at 9% per annum which according to us is just and reasonable. Claim for costs under head ‘J’ was disallowed by the Arbitrator which was confirmed by the court below. AS regards the counter claim raised by the respondents for expenses incurred for rearranging the balance work, the Arbitrator found that rearrangement was not in accordance with the LCB conditions and further that there is lapse of 3 years in rearranging the work. AS regards the counter claim raised by the respondents for expenses incurred for rearranging the balance work, the Arbitrator found that rearrangement was not in accordance with the LCB conditions and further that there is lapse of 3 years in rearranging the work. The claim was rejected by the Arbitrator which was confirmed in O.P.(Arb.) by the court below. 8. We find that the Arbitrator has gone through the M Books, Work files, original and supplementary agreements and had conducted site inspections, based on which the award has been passed. The merit of the claims was revisited by the Subordinate Judge’s Court in O.P.(Arb.) No.39 of 1995. We are in agreement with the view taken by the court below. We do not find any grounds to interfere with the findings except regarding the rate of interest as noticed supra. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. The rate of interest payable is re-fixed at 9% per annum. In all other respects the impugned order stands confirmed. No costs.