ORDER : D.N.RAY, J. 1. Heard Mr. Palak H.Thakkar, learned advocate appearing for the Appellant and Mr. Sharvil P. Majmudar, learned advocate with Mr. Shashvata U.Shukla, learned advocate for the Respondent. 2. The brief facts of the case are as under :- 2.1 The respondent, Gunjan Paints Ltd., is engaged in the manufacture of paints and polymers. For the period from 01.04.2011 to 31.03.2012, it had insured its industrial premises and related assets under a policy issued by the appellant, New India Assurance Company Ltd. 2.2 On 05.05.2011, a fire incident occurred at the respondent's factory premises at approximately 1:30 PM, allegedly due to an electrical short circuit. Consequently, the respondent lodged a claim with the appellant under the said insurance policy, seeking compensation for the loss. The insurance company appointed a Senior Surveyor and Loss Assessor to investigate and assess the extent of the loss. The site was visited on 08.05.2011, and thereafter, a final survey report was submitted on 06.02.2012, assessing the net loss at Rs.20,90,284/-, as against the respondent’s claim of Rs.1,64,05,793/-. 2.3 Following the survey report, the insurance company conducted further investigation and, vide report dated 28.04.2012, finalized the claim. A settlement voucher dated 14.05.2012 was issued to the respondent, offering Rs.20,90,270/- as full and final settlement. The respondent, being dissatisfied with the quantum offered, invoked the arbitration clause embedded in the policy. Accordingly, the Arbitral Tribunal was constituted with the respondent nominating Mr. D.T. Patel, and the appellant nominating Mr. Shishir Shah, while Mr. Rajiv Shah was appointed as the Presiding Arbitrator in accordance with the terms of the agreement. 2.4 The respondent filed its statement of claim dated 18.02.2013, reiterating the claim amount of Rs.1,64,05,793/-, which comprised heads such as electrification, consultant fees, repairs and replacement of building, machinery, stock-in- process, packaging materials, and other ancillary items. Interest at the rate of 18% per annum was also claimed for the alleged delay in payment. The appellant filed its written statement, to which the respondent submitted a rejoinder. An affidavit of examination-in-chief of Mr. M.S. Relwani, the appointed Surveyor, was also placed on record on 12.05.2013, accompanied by relevant documentation. 2.5 Subsequently, a statement of admission and denial was filed by the respondent on 07.12.2013. During the third arbitral sitting on 08.02.2014, the appellant confirmed the payment of Rs.20,90,270/- to the respondent pursuant to an interim arrangement. A review report dated 03.02.2014 by Mr. M.S. Relwani, the appointed Surveyor, was also placed on record on 12.05.2013, accompanied by relevant documentation. 2.5 Subsequently, a statement of admission and denial was filed by the respondent on 07.12.2013. During the third arbitral sitting on 08.02.2014, the appellant confirmed the payment of Rs.20,90,270/- to the respondent pursuant to an interim arrangement. A review report dated 03.02.2014 by Mr. Relwani of M/s. Prabha Associates was also submitted. At the fifth arbitral meeting held on 25.05.2014, both parties confirmed that they had no further submissions to offer, and the matter was reserved for award. 2.6 The Arbitral Tribunal, as per the appellant, framed only a singular issue regarding the respondent’s entitlement to the claimed amount of Rs.1,64,05,793/- and, after considering the record and cross-examination of the Surveyor, passed an award dated 26.08.2014, directing payment of an additional sum of Rs.57,26,780/- along with interest at 9% per annum. The Tribunal also awarded interest on the previously paid amount of Rs.20,90,270/- from 07.03.2012 till the date of payment. 3. Being aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 30.11.2018, passed by the learned City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, dismissing the Civil Misc. Application No. 561 of 2014, by upholding the award dated 26.08.2014, passed by the Ld. Arbitral Tribunal, the appellant has filed this present appeal under Section 37 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, with the following prayers:- a) Be pleased to admit and allow this appeal; (b) Be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 30.11.2018 passed by the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Misc. Application No. 561 of 2014; (c) Be pleased to allow Civil Misc. Application No. 561 of 2014 and quash and set aside the award, dated 26.08.2014, passed by the Arbitral Tribunal; (d) Be pleased to award cost of this appeal; (e) Be pleased to pass such other and further order/s as may be deemed just and proper in the facts of the case, in the interest of justice. 4. Mr. Palak H.Thakkar, learned advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the award, on a bare perusal thereof, would reveal that the same is non-speaking. Therefore the same is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and contrary to the evidence on record and suffers from the vice of ‘patent illegality’. 4.1 According to Mr. 4. Mr. Palak H.Thakkar, learned advocate for the Appellant has submitted that the award, on a bare perusal thereof, would reveal that the same is non-speaking. Therefore the same is illegal, arbitrary, perverse and contrary to the evidence on record and suffers from the vice of ‘patent illegality’. 4.1 According to Mr. Thakkar, the learned Civil Court had erred in upholding the award by which the Tribunal had reached the conclusion that the Respondent was entitled to any sum beyond Rs.20,90,270/- as there was nothing on record to show that the assessment made by the Surveyor was wrong and would have impelled the Tribunal to take a different view from the reasoned decision of the Surveyor. Mr. Thakkar further submitted that the Surveyor appointed by the Appellant-Insurance Company was a duly licenced surveyor under the IRDA Regulation and was appointed as per the provisions of Section 64UM of the INSURANCE ACT , 1938 and therefore, the report of the said Surveyor, which had statutory value, could not have been substituted by the Tribunal, that too without any cogent reasons, therefor. 5. On the other-hand, Mr. Sharvil P. Majmudar, learned advocate appearing with Mr. Shashvata U. Shukla for the Respondent-Original Claimant took this Court through the award in great detail. It was submitted that the award was unanimous by three members of the Tribunal and every aspect of the claim has been deliberated by the Tribunal. Particular reference was drawn to Page No.42 of the paper-book of the First Appeal No.1363 of 2019, containing the cross- examination conducted by the Tribunal itself upon the Surveyor as under :- “BY ARBITRATORS 1. Basis of rate considered for valuation of building. A. It is out of experience in working with similar claims. 2. Basis of computation of steel structure supporting the roof and loft. A. Fabrication drawing was not provided and weight is based on my judgement. There is no backup calculation. 3. Roof area considered for assessment 600 Sq.Mtrs. against 770 Sq.Mtrs. claimed by the Insured. A About 20% roof area was not damaged and not considered. 4. Reason for considering repairs cost of machinery at Rs.53,000.00 against claim of Rs.2,86,554.00. A. I was not given opportunity to inspect the damaged machineries in dismantled condition and the machineries were not repaired as such. 5. Cable removal not allowed, please explain. A. It can be considered as salvaging expense. 6. 4. Reason for considering repairs cost of machinery at Rs.53,000.00 against claim of Rs.2,86,554.00. A. I was not given opportunity to inspect the damaged machineries in dismantled condition and the machineries were not repaired as such. 5. Cable removal not allowed, please explain. A. It can be considered as salvaging expense. 6. Against the claim of electrical of Rs. 12,30,500.00, Rs.75,000.00 only was considered. A. This work was not done and hence assessed on adhoc basis. 7. Remark pertaining to closing stock of financial year 2010-11. A. You have drawn my attention to the audited balance sheet wherein total value of stock was Rs.2,74,90,030.00. The figure I have taken is from Schedule-17 which actually represents of finished stock. The point was not clarified by Insured as well. 8. Basis of finished stock loss assessment. A. Polymer division stock was as per the statement given by the Insured and not verified by me. Presently I do not remember from where the amount of stock lying at Mumbai and Bhopal was considered. Presumably it was as per the information given by the Insured. For the value of finished stock at risk, I do not have item wise value of finished stock. 9. Basis of valuation of stock transferred to Mumbai and Bhopal Depot A The aspect of difference in cost price and transfer price was not looked into. 10. Basis of loss assessment on raw material at Rs.2,00,000.00. A. Stock lying in the main paint factory was damaged but beyond identification and physical verification. Some part of this stock was lying in godown building and was not verified. Assessment of loss can be reviewed and revision is possible. Above the position is read over to the deponent and he agrees that the same is correct.” 6. Thus, from the above cross-examination of the Surveyor, per Tribunal, it is clear from the answers given by the Surveyor, particularly against question No.6, 7 and 8, that the entire estimation by the Surveyor was on ad-hoc basis and dehors the material particulars which were presented to the Surveyor. It is thus apparent to this Court that the Tribunal had arrived at the conclusion in the award on the strength of the lack of material particulars as referred to by the Surveyor and therefore, such approach of the Tribunal namely, the decision making process, cannot be faulted. It is thus apparent to this Court that the Tribunal had arrived at the conclusion in the award on the strength of the lack of material particulars as referred to by the Surveyor and therefore, such approach of the Tribunal namely, the decision making process, cannot be faulted. In such view of the matter, the learned City Civil Court also cannot be faulted for upholding the award. 7. In the recent decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of C & C Constructions Ltd. Vs. IRCON International Ltd. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 218 explaining the scope of an Appeal under Section 37 of the Act, it has been held as under :- “27. As far as scope of interference in an appeal under Section 37 of Arbitration Act is concerned, the law is well settled. In the case of Larsen Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Company v. Union of India in paragraph 15, this court held thus: "15. The limited and extremely circumscribed jurisdiction of the court under Section 34 of the Act, permits the court to interfere with an award, sans the grounds of patent illegality l.e. that "illegality must go to the root of the matter and cannot be of a trivial nature"; and that the Tribunal "must decide in accordance with the terms of the contract, but if an arbitrator construes a term of the contract in a reasonable manner, it will not mean that the award can be set aside on this ground" [ref: Associate Builders [Associate Builders v. DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204], SCC p. 81, para 42].The other ground would be denial of natural justice. In appeal, Section 37 of the Act grants narrower scope to the appellate court to review the findings in an award, if it has been upheld, or substantially upheld under Section 34." (emphasis added) 28. In the case of Konkan Railway Corporation Limited v. Chenab Bridge Project Undertaking in paragraph 18, this court held thus: "18. At the outset, we may state that the jurisdiction of the court under Section 37 of the Act, as clarified by this Court in MMTC Ltd. v. Vedanta Ltd. [MMTC Ltd. v. Vedanta Ltd., (2019) 4 SCC 163 : (2019) 2 SCC (Civ) 293], is akin to the jurisdiction of the court under Section 34 of the Act. [Id, SCC p. 167, para 14:"14. [Id, SCC p. 167, para 14:"14. As far as interference with an order made under Section 34, as per Section 37 , is concerned, it cannot be disputed that such interference under Section 37 cannot travel beyond the restrictions laid down under Section 34. In other words, the court cannot undertake an independent assessment of the merits of the award, and must only ascertain that the exercise of power by the court under Section 34 has not exceeded the scope of the provision."] Scope of interference by a court in an appeal under Section 37 of the Act, in examining an order, setting aside or refusing to set aside an award, is restricted and subject to the same grounds as the challenge under Section 34 of the Act. “ 8. Respectfully following the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in IRCON (Supra), we merits in the instant appeal which is consequently dismissed. No order as to costs.