ORDER : I.A. No. 4129 of 2020 1. The appellant has filed this interlocutory application under section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 57 days in filing the present Letters Patent Appeal. 2. In view of the statements made in this interlocutory application, the delay of 57 days in filing this appeal is condoned. 3. I.A. No. 4129 of 2020 is, accordingly, allowed. Commercial Appeal No. 17 of 2020 4. Briefly stated, the New India Assurance Company Limited (in short, Insurance Company) issued a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy dated 12th November 2014 through its Chaibasa branch in respect of the rice mill belonging to M/s Sri Balaji Agro Farm Industries Pvt. Ltd. (in short, claimant) at village Ranjitpur in the district of Seraikella within the State of Jharkhand. The aforesaid insurance policy covered the rice mill for the period between 12th November 2014 to mid night of 11th November 2015. A claim for Rs. 49,15,000/- was lodged by the claimant with the Insurance Company for the loss caused due to storm on 27th May 2015 and the aforesaid claim was referred to Purkayastha Associates under section 64UM(4) of the Insurance Act, 1938 for survey and loss assessment. Against the loss assessment by the Surveyor to the tune of Rs. 3,21,830.94, the claimant lodged a representation which was referred to the Surveyor and the same has been rejected on the ground of the claim being beyond the terms and conditions of the policy. According to the Insurance Company the claimant was offered the assessed amount which was refused by it. On refusal of its representation, the claimant issued a legal notice on 10th August 2016 for settlement of its claims. Latter on, the claimant company sent a notice dated 16th March 2017 to the Insurance Company for reference of the dispute to arbitration. Thereafter an Arbitrator was appointed vide order dated 29th June 2018 by the Jharkhand High Court, in the proceeding of the Arbitration Application No. 21 of 2017 filed under section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996. 5. The claimant raised claims under 3 heads viz. (A) cost incurred in refurbishing the rice mill (B) estimated cost of pending work after damage by storm and (C) overhead office expenses and interest. The total claim under the aforesaid heads was to the tune of Rs. 93,75,464.98. 5. The claimant raised claims under 3 heads viz. (A) cost incurred in refurbishing the rice mill (B) estimated cost of pending work after damage by storm and (C) overhead office expenses and interest. The total claim under the aforesaid heads was to the tune of Rs. 93,75,464.98. Before the Sole Arbitrator, a plea was raised by the Insurance Company that in view of section 28 to the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, the provisions of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 are made inapplicable and the Surveyor's report cannot be challenged in the arbitration proceeding and any dispute regarding the same has to be raised before IRDA under section 64 UM of the Insurance Act, 1938. 6. The Arbitrator has referred to 17 documents filed by the claimant and Fire Claim Form under Annexure-A and Final Form report vide Annexure-B tendered by the Insurance Company. The learned Arbitrator has also referred to the judgments in “BCCI v. Kochi Cricket Pvt. Ltd” AIR 2018 SC 1549 , “The NIA Company Ltd. v. M/s Protection Manufacturer Pvt. Ltd.” (2010) 7 SCC 386 , “Sri Venkateshwara Syndicate v. OIC Ltd.” (2009) 8 SCC 507 , “M/s Surendra Pd. Singh v. UOI & Ors.” 2012 (3) PLJR 506 and “New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Pradeep Kumar” (2009) 7 SCC 787 which were relied upon on behalf of the claimant. 7. The learned Arbitrator having noticed that the bills enclosed by the claimant were not disputed or challenged as fake or fictitious has allowed the claim on account of cost incurred by the claimant in refurbishing the rice mill and the other claims under the head (B) and (C) have been disallowed. The Arbitrator has made Award dated 28th July 2019 in favour of the claimant for Rs. 26,41,120/- along with interest @ 7% w.e.f. 1st August 2016. 8. In the Arbitration Case No. 11 of 2019, the Insurance Company raised a plea that claims for certain items which were not insured and no premium was paid have been allowed by the Arbitrator. Before the Arbitrator also the Insurance Company had pleaded that claims for the items like chimneys, pipes for shed, colour coated sheet, MS Sheet and angle which are not part of the insurance schedule items were made by the claimant. 9. Before the Arbitrator also the Insurance Company had pleaded that claims for the items like chimneys, pipes for shed, colour coated sheet, MS Sheet and angle which are not part of the insurance schedule items were made by the claimant. 9. In the order dated 13th March 2020 passed in Arbitration Case No. 11 of 2019 the District Judge-I-cum-Commercial Court, East Singhbhum at Jamshedpur has held as under: “12. In view of the different citation/ judicial pronouncements discussed above it is manifestly clear that this court is not sitting in appeal against the award passed by the Arbitral Tribunal and the court is not required to re-appreciate or re-evaluate the evidence led before the arbitrator. The Id Counsel for the Objector has also asserted that the learned Arbitrator has not considered the objections of the objectors and published the award without considering the objections. The objection that the award is bad and illegal, it is contrary to the terms and conditions of policy and in conflict with the provision of the policy are not sustainable in view of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The Ld. Arbitrator has erred by ignoring section 64 UM of the Insurance Act, 1938 whereas the Survey Report of the surveyor is binding on the applicant and the power of reassessment has been taken away from this applicant and the reassessment or setting aside a survey report lies only with the IRDA as per section 64 (5) of the Insurance Act. section 64 UM Insurance Act has stated that this applicant/ cannot take a second opinion without disputing the submitted survey report before the IRDA, whose decision is final and binding Even though, the petitioner/Claimant has taken several grounds for setting aside the award but the basic ground taken by the objectors is that the impugned Award has been passed without any reasonable and sufficient ground and against the principles of natural justice and gross mistake has been committed by the learned Arbitrators which is against the law and against the documentary evidence and in violation of the terms of the policy and contrary to the provision and condition of the policy. 13. 13. Although, I find that some merit in the contention of learned counsel of the applicant/ respondent is that (a) Under section 64 UM Insurance Act has mandatory to the applicant to be challenge/ raised his dispute before the IRDA against the survey report, (ii) Under Section 31(3) the Arbitrator has given no reasons upon which the arbitral award is based, but in view of the judgment refereed above by the claimant/ OP in which Hon'le court held that “even if two views are possible, reappraisal of material on record by the Court and substituting its own view in place of Arbitrator's view is not permissible in absence of perversity. Once the Arbitrator has applied his mind to the matter before him, Court cannot reappraise the said matter as if it were in appeal'. Further relying upon Navodaya Mass Entertainment Limited v. J.M. Combines, Sutlej Construction Limited v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, Rastriya Ispat Nigam Limited v. Diwan Chand Ramsaran and Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority (Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held an award cannot be set aside. The arbitrator is a judge chosen by the parties and his decision is final, The court is precluded from reappraising the evidence. Even in a case where the award contains reasons, the interference therewith would still be not available within the jurisdiction of the court unless, of course, the reasons are totally perverse or the judgment is based on a wrong proposition of law' The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that “the jurisdiction is not appellate in nature and an award passed by an arbitrator cannot be set aside on the ground that it was erroneous. It is not open to the court to interfere with the award merely because in the opinion of the court, another view is equally possible. It is not open to the court to interfere with the award merely because in the opinion of the court, another view is equally possible. It is only when the court is satisfied that the arbitrator had misconducted himself or the proceedings or the award has been improperly procured or is otherwise invalid that the court may set aside such award.” The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that “ It must also be borne in mind that a court does not sit as one in appeal over the award of the arbitrator and if the view taken by the arbitrator is permissible, no interference is called for on the premise that a different view was also possible.” The Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that “Even if on the assessment of material, the court while considering the objections under section 34 is of the view that there are two views possible and the Arbitral Tribunal has taken one of the possible views which could have been taken on the material before it, the court would be reluctant to interfere.” 14. A perusal of impugned Award clearly shows that the learned Arbitrator has dealt with the matter and after considering the material on the record, the impugned Award has been passed. Hence this court is not required to re-appreciate and re-evaluate the findings given by the Tribunal. Therefore, in view of the above said discussion and after considering the contentions of the learned counsels for the parties and in view of the authoritative pronouncements discussed above and also as this court is not sitting in appeal against the impugned award the court is not required to re-appreciate or reevaluate the evidence led before the Arbitral Tribunal, I find that the Respondent/ Applicant herein has failed to make out a case for any interference with the impugned award dated 23-07-2019 passed by the Arbitral Tribunal, under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act. 15. Hence, issue no. 1 “Whether the award is liable to be set aside in view of the objection?” is decided in favour of Opposite party/claimant against the applicant/ respondent. Hence, the impugned award dated 23-07-2019 does not require any interference. Accordingly, I find that instant suit for setting aside the arbitral award dated 23-07-2019 passed by the Learned Sole arbitrator Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, Advocate (Sole Arbitrator) is devoid of merit and liable to be dismiss. Hence, the impugned award dated 23-07-2019 does not require any interference. Accordingly, I find that instant suit for setting aside the arbitral award dated 23-07-2019 passed by the Learned Sole arbitrator Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, Advocate (Sole Arbitrator) is devoid of merit and liable to be dismiss. Therefore, it is hereby, ORDERED Accordingly, objections are overruled. In the result, this Arbitration Case under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 for setting aside the arbitral award dated 23-07-2019 passed by the Learned Sole Arbitrator Shri Rajiv Ranjan Mishra, Advocate (Sole Arbitrator), stand dismissed, in the circumstances of the Case, there shall be no order as to costs.” 10. Mr. Pratyush Kumar, the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to sub-section 4 to section 64UM of the Insurance Act, 1938 which provides that no claim in respect of the loss equal to or exceeding an amount specified in the regulations by the Authority in value of any policy of insurance, arising or intimated to the insurer at any time after expiry of a period of one year from the commencement of the Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 shall unless otherwise directed by the Authority be admitted for payment or settled by the Insurer unless he has obtained a report on the loss that has occurred from a person who holds a license issued under this Act as a surveyor or loss assessor, to submit that without seeking a report of 2nd surveyor about claims raised on account of loss incurred for items like chimneys, pipes for shed, colour coated sheet, MS sheet & angle etc. which were not part of the insurance schedule those claims could not have been allowed by the Arbitrator. The learned counsel further submits that the Arbitrator while acting contrary to the aforesaid provision under section 64UM(4) has rendered the Award dated 23rd July 2019 which suffers from patent illegality. 11. The ground of patent illegality has been incorporated by the Amendment Act 2015 under sub-section (2-A) to section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 which expression has been interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in “Ssangyong Engg. & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI” (2019) 15 SCC 131 in the following words: “37. Insofar as domestic awards made in India are concerned, an additional ground is now available under sub-section (2-A), added by the Amendment Act, 2015, to Section 34. & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI” (2019) 15 SCC 131 in the following words: “37. Insofar as domestic awards made in India are concerned, an additional ground is now available under sub-section (2-A), added by the Amendment Act, 2015, to Section 34. Here, there must be patent illegality appearing on the face of the award, which refers to such illegality as goes to the root of the matter but which does not amount to mere erroneous application of the law. In short, what is not subsumed within “the fundamental policy of Indian law”, namely, the contravention of a statute not linked to public policy or public interest, cannot be brought in by the backdoor when it comes to setting aside an award on the ground of patent illegality. 38. Secondly, it is also made clear that re-appreciation of evidence, which is what an appellate court is permitted to do, cannot be permitted under the ground of patent illegality appearing on the face of the award. 39. To elucidate, para 42.1 of Associate Builders, namely, a mere contravention of the substantive law of India, by itself, is no longer a ground available to set aside an arbitral award. Para 42.2 of Associate Builders, however, would remain, for if an arbitrator gives no reasons for an award and contravenes Section 31(3) of the 1996 Act, that would certainly amount to a patent illegality on the face of the award. 40. The change made in Section 28(3) by the Amendment Act really follows what is stated in paras 42.3 to 45 in Associate Builders, namely, that the construction of the terms of a contract is primarily for an arbitrator to decide, unless the arbitrator construes the contract in a manner that no fair-minded or reasonable person would; in short, that the arbitrator's view is not even a possible view to take. Also, if the arbitrator wanders outside the contract and deals with matters not allotted to him, he commits an error of jurisdiction. This ground of challenge will now fall within the new ground added under Section 34(2-A). 41. What is important to note is that a decision which is perverse, as understood in paras 31 and 32 of Associate Builders, while no longer being a ground for challenge under “public policy of India”, would certainly amount to a patent illegality appearing on the face of the award. 41. What is important to note is that a decision which is perverse, as understood in paras 31 and 32 of Associate Builders, while no longer being a ground for challenge under “public policy of India”, would certainly amount to a patent illegality appearing on the face of the award. Thus, a finding based on no evidence at all or an award which ignores vital evidence in arriving at its decision would be perverse and liable to be set aside on the ground of patent illegality. Additionally, a finding based on documents taken behind the back of the parties by the arbitrator would also qualify as a decision based on no evidence inasmuch as such decision is not based on evidence led by the parties, and therefore, would also have to be characterised as perverse.” 12. Under section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 there are limited grounds to lay a challenge to the arbitral award made by the Arbitrator. Therefore there are limitations on the powers of the Court to interfere with a speaking award. The central theme of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 is that sanctity of an arbitral award must be preserved and any judicial interference with the arbitral award must be within the confines of section 34. The proviso to sub-section (2-A) of section 34 specifically provides that the decision of the Arbitrator cannot be turned down on re-appreciation of evidence even where the Arbitrator has wrongly decided a question of law. No doubt if it appears on the face of the award that the arbitrator has proceeded illegally or makes a serious error which is apparent on the face of the records, that is to say, admitting an inadmissible evidence or adopting a principle of construction which in law cannot be countenanced the same can be a ground for setting-aside the award. But this is not the situation here in this case. 13. Section 64UM of the Insurance Act, 1938 prior to the substitution by the Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 No. 5 of 2015 reads as under: 64-UM. But this is not the situation here in this case. 13. Section 64UM of the Insurance Act, 1938 prior to the substitution by the Insurance Laws (Amendment) Act, 2015 No. 5 of 2015 reads as under: 64-UM. Licensing of surveyors and loss assessors: (1)(A) Save as otherwise provided in this section, no person shall act as a surveyor or loss assessor in respect of general insurance business after the expiry of a period of one year from the commencement of the Insurance (Amendment) Act, 1968, unless he holds a valid licence issued to him by the Authority. (B) Every person who intends to act as a surveyor or loss assessor after the expiry of a period of one year from the commencement of the Insurance (Amendment) Act, 1968, but before the commencement of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999 shall make an application to the Authority within such time, in such form, in such manner and on payment of such fee, not exceeding rupees two hundred and fifty, as may be prescribed. (BA) Every person who intends to act as a surveyor or loss assessor after the expiry of a period of one year from the commencement of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999, shall make an application to the Authority within such time, in such manner and on payment of such fee as may be determined by the regulations made by the Authority: Provided that any licence issued immediately before the commencement of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999 shall be deemed to have been issued in accordance with the regulations providing for such licence. (C) Every licence issued under this section shall remain in force, unless cancelled earlier, for a period of five years from the date of issue thereof, and may be renewed for a period of five years at a time, on payment of such fee, not exceeding rupees two hundred, as may be determined by the regulations. (D) No licence to act as a surveyor or loss assessor shall be issued unless: (i) the applicant, where he is an individual, satisfies the Authority that he: (a) has been in practice as a surveyor or loss assessor on the date of commencement of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority Act, 1999. (b) holds a degree of a recognised University in any branch of engineering. (b) holds a degree of a recognised University in any branch of engineering. (c) is a fellow or associate member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India or the Institute of Cost and Works Accountants of India. (d) possesses actuarial qualifications or holds a degree or diploma of any recognized University or institute in relation to insurance. (e) holds a diploma in insurance granted or recognised by the Government. (f) possesses such other technical qualification as may be specified by the regulations made by the Authority. (g) does not suffer from any of the disqualifications mentioned in sub-section (4) of Section 42. (ii) the applicant, where he is a company or firm, satisfies the Authority that all his directors or partners, as the case may be, possess one or more of the qualifications specified in clause (i) and none of such directors or partners suffer from any of the disqualifications mentioned in sub-section (4) of Section 42. (E) Every application for the renewal of the licence shall be made at least thirty days before the expiry of the period of validity thereof. (F) The Authority may, if he is satisfied that any licence issued or renewed under this section has been lost or destroyed, issue a duplicate licence on payment of a fee of rupees five and the duplicate licence so issued shall remain in force for the remainder of the period of validity of the licence in lieu of which it is issued. (G) Without prejudice to the powers conferred by sub-section (7), the Authority, if satisfied that the holder of any licence has made a statement which is false in material particulars with regard to his eligibility for obtaining such licence or has, after the issue or renewal of such licence, acquired any of the disqualifications mentioned in sub-section (4) of Section 42, may, after giving a reasonable opportunity to the holder of such licence of being heard, by order cancel such licence and notify such cancellation in the Official Gazette. (1-A) Every surveyor and loss assessor shall comply with the code of conduct in respect of their duties, responsibilities and other professional requirements as may be specified by the regulations made by the Authority. (1-A) Every surveyor and loss assessor shall comply with the code of conduct in respect of their duties, responsibilities and other professional requirements as may be specified by the regulations made by the Authority. (2) No claim in respect of a loss which has occurred in India and requiring to be paid or settled in India equal to or exceeding twenty thousand rupees in value on any policy of insurance, arising or intimated to an insurer at any time after the expiry of a period of one year from the commencement of the Insurance (Amendment) Act, 1968, shall, unless otherwise directed by the Authority, be admitted for payment or settled by the insurer unless he has obtained a report, on the loss that has occurred, from a person who holds a licence issued under this section to act as a surveyor or loss assessor (hereafter referred to as “approved surveyor or loss assessor”): Provided that nothing in this sub-section shall be deemed to take away or abridge the right of the insurer to pay or settle any claim at any amount different from the amount assessed by the approved surveyor or loss assessor. (3) The Authority may, at any time, in respect of any claim of the nature referred to in sub-section (2), call for an independent report from any other approved surveyor or loss assessor specified by it and such surveyor or loss assessor shall furnish such report to the Authority within such time as may be specified by the Authority or if no time-limit has been specified by it within a reasonable time and the cost of, or incidental to, such report shall be borne by the insurer. (4) The Authority may, on receipt of a report referred to in subsection (3), issue such directions as it may consider necessary with regard to the settlement of the claim including any direction to settle a claim at a figure less than, or more than, that at which it is proposed to settle it or it was settled and the insurer shall be bound to comply with such directions: Provided that where the Authority issues a direction for settling a claim at a figure lower than that at which it has already been settled, the insurer shall be deemed to comply with such direction if he satisfies the Authority that all reasonable steps, with due regard to the question whether the expenditure involved is not disproportionate to the amount required to be recovered, have been taken with due dispatch by him: Provided further that no direction for the payment of a lesser sum shall be made where the amount of the claim has already been paid and the Authority is of opinion that the recovery of the amount paid in excess would cause undue hardship to the insured: Provided also that nothing in this section shall relieve the insurer from any liability, civil or criminal, to which he would have been subject but for the provisions of this sub-section. (5) No insurer shall, after the expiry of a period of one year from the commencement of the Insurance (Amendment) Act, 1968, pay to any person any fee or remuneration for surveying, verifying or reporting on a claim of loss under a policy of insurance unless the person making such survey, verification or report is an approved surveyor or loss assessor. (6) Where, in the case of a claim of less than twenty thousand rupees in value on any policy of insurance it is not practicable for an insurer to employ an approved surveyor or loss assessor without incurring expenses disproportionate to the amount of the claim, the insurer may employ any other person (not being a person disqualified for the time being for being employed as a surveyor or loss assessor) for surveying such loss and may pay such reasonable fee or remuneration to the person so employed as he may think fit. (7) If the Authority is satisfied that an approved surveyor or loss assessor has been guilty of wilfully making a false statement knowing it to be false or of being knowingly a party to the settlement of a claim in a fraudulent manner, he may, after giving such surveyor or loss assessor an opportunity of being heard, cancel the licence issued to him with effect from such date as may be specified by him and shall notify such cancellation in the Official Gazette. (8) Any surveyor or loss assessor whose licence has been cancelled shall not be eligible for having a licence to act as a surveyor or loss assessor for a period of three years from the date on which the cancellation is notified in the Official Gazette. (9) The Authority may in respect of any claim of value of less than twenty thousand rupees on an insurance policy, if the claim has not been or is not proposed to be reported upon by a surveyor or loss assessor, direct that such claim shall be reported upon by an approved surveyor or loss assessor and where the Authority makes such direction, the provisions of sub-sections (3) and (4) shall apply in respect of such claim. (10) Where, in relation to any class of claims, the Authority is satisfied that it is customary to entrust the work of survey or loss assessment to any person other than a licensed surveyor or loss assessor, or it is not practicable to make any survey or loss assessment, it may, by an order published in the Official Gazette, exempt such class of claims from the operation of this section.” 14. On a plain reading of sub-section 4, we do not find any inherent disability attached to the Arbitrator in making the Award in respect of chimneys, pipes for shed, colour coated sheet, MS sheet & angle etc. The proviso to sub-section (4) to section 64UM makes it clear that the insurer may settle the claim for the loss suffered by the insured or to pay the insured any amount different from the amount assessed by the approved Surveyor. The learned Arbitrator has observed that Surveyor's report is not the last and final word and it is not sacrosanct and conclusive. The learned Arbitrator has observed that Surveyor's report is not the last and final word and it is not sacrosanct and conclusive. Indeed this is also not in the realm of doubt that the surveyor's report is not conclusive and it is a piece of evidence which has to be dealt with by the Arbitrator like any other piece of evidence. No doubt some importance may be attached to the report made by a surveyor but the same is not binding on the Court or the Arbitrator. 15. In “National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vedic Resorts & Hotels (P) Ltd.” 2023 SCC Online SC 648 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: “14. It is trite to say that wherever such an exclusionary clause is contained in a policy, it would be for the insurer to show that the case falls within the purview of such clause. In case of ambiguity, the contract of insurance has to be construed in favour of the insured.” 16. In our opinion, a Standard Fire and Special Perils Policy must include all expenses incurred on refurbishing the rice mill and it is really immaterial that the items like chimneys, pipes for shed, colour coated sheet, MS Sheet and angle were not specifically mentioned in the insurance schedule. 17. Following the aforesaid discussion, Commercial Appeal No. 17 of 2020 is dismissed.