Devi Ram vs State of Himachal Pradesh and Another

D.B. Lal, J.—This is a suit under the Arbitration Act, 1940, and arises u/s 14 of that Act. Devi Ram Petitioner-claimant purchased Lot No. 1-NR of 1966-67 from the Forest Department and the trees involved were 1496 which were said to be damaged by fire or cut because of electric lane clearance. A dispute arose between the Petitioner-claimant and the Department because the latter forfeited the timber and alleged illicit felling by the Petitioner-claimant. For this with holding of timber, the Petitioner-claimant set up a demand of more than rupees one lakh, while the Department claimed near about Rs. 50,000/- from him. Under Clause 29 of the agreement entered into between the parties, the dispute was referred to the sole arbitration of the Conservator of Forest, Bilaspur Circle, Bilaspur, who examined the evidence, both oral and documentary, and gave his award on 14th August, 1972. Subsequently Devi Ram Petitioner-claimant applied to the arbitrator that the award be filed in Court, which he did on 26-2-1973. Usual notices were issued to the parties. The Petitioner-claimant filed his objections and similarly did the Respondent-objector.

The objections filed by the Petitioner-claimant were to the effect that his claim of rupees one lakh and odd was awfully diminished by the arbitrator who being a Government officer was favouring the Respondents. The Respondent-objector on the other hand submitted that the arbitrator failed to adjudicate upon the issues raised by the Department and did not deal with illicit felling and damages due to that accrued to the Department. It was further pleaded that proper opportunity was not granted to the Department to produce their evidence. In short, it was stated that the arbitrator had misconducted himself and the award need be set aside. The following issues were framed for the decision of the suit. Issues:

(1) Whether the objections filed by the Petitioner-claimant are barred by time, as alleged.

(2) Whether the Petitioner is entitled to the full amount of Rs. 1,21,039.54 and by disallowing the said amount the arbitrator has misconducted himself for the reasons stated in the objections filed by the Respondent-objectors.

(3) Whether the loss suffered by the Petitioner-claimant was due to the illegal seizure of timber by the staff of the Forest Department. If so, its effect ?

(4) Whether the arbitrator has failed to adjudicate upon the issues which arise for decision between the parties. If so, its effect ?

(5) Whether the arbitrator has misconducted himself and whether the award has been improperly procured, as alleged by the Petitioner-claimant.

(6) To what relief, if any, is the Petitioner-claimant entitled ?

FINDINGS

Issues (1), (2) and (3):

These issues arise out of the objections filed by the Petitioner-claimant. As per statement of Devi Ram (P.W. 1), he has withdrawn these objections. Since he no longer pressed his objections, and rather requested that the award be made a rule of the Court, it is no longer necessary to decide these three issues.

Issues (4) and (5):

As regards opportunities given to the Respondent-Department for production of evidence, I sent for the record of the arbitration. It is abundantly clear that several opportunities were given to the Respondent-Department and they did produce their witnesses. In fact, the proceedings were rather long drawn out and several witnesses were examined on either side. All relevant documents were produced by the parties. The arbitrator has himself mentioned in the award that he had cosidered "the statements of the parties and the oral and documentary evidence produced by them" and also heard arguments addressed before him. The statement is amply borne out from the record.

Therefore, it would be futile to argue that no opportunity was given to the Respondent-Department to produce evidence. Similarly requests for adjournment were properly considered by the arbitrator. In fact the proceedings were adjourned on several dates at the instance of the Department. As such the arbitrator cannot be stated to have misconducted due to any such reason.

It was stressed by the learned Counsel that the award itself did not specifically mention about illicit felling and damages claimed by,the Department. As such, according to the learned Counsel, the award is incomplete and should be remitted. It was also contended that every issue was required to be dealt with by the arbitrator which he never did. In this connection there is ample evidence to indicate that the arbitrator was seized of the entire dispute which contained a counter-claim by the Department for illicit felling and other damages. In fact such a claim of the Department received due attention by the arbitrator. There is a letter at page 201 of the file of the arbitrator in which Devi Ram Petitioner-claimant himself wanted the arbitrator to send for the damages register showing illicit felling of trees. From this letter, it is evident that the issue regarding illicit felling was very much alive before the arbitrator and the parties actually adduced evidence on that issue. The Department witness Baldev Singh D.F.O. (D.W. 1) produced a comparative statement in this Court, showing illicit felling. It is not required of this Court to give a finding as to whether illicit felling was resorted to and as to whether any damage accrued to the Department because of it. It suffices to say that evidence regarding illicit felling and damage was adduced before the arbitrator, of whatever worth it was, and the arbitrator considered that evidence. The only flaw that was pointed out is that no specific issue is dealt within the award regarding illicit felling and damage due to it claimed by the Department. Where an award is challenged on the ground of its incompleteness, the Court should approach it with a desire to support it, if that is reasonably possible, rather than to destory it by calling it illegal. Unless the reference to arbitration specifically so requires, the arbitrator is not bound to deal with each claim or matter separately, but can deliver a consolidated award. As evident, the arbitrator did consider the entire evidence and intended to give a full award. Hence a presumption would be that he disposed of finally all the matters in dispute as that was his intention to do. In this connection, reliance can be placed on Smt. Santa Sila Devi and Another Vs. Dhirendra Nath Sen and Others, After considering the record of the arbitrator and the contents of the award itself. I have no hesitation to hold that it was a full award given by the arbitrator and he should be deemed to have refused the claim of the Department for illicit felling or for any other damage due to any reason. It was not required of the arbitrator to have dealt with those questions specifically under a separate heading, as was pointed out by the learned Counsel. Therefore, the award cannot be stated to be incomplete.

It cannot be stated that the arbitrator has misconducted himself and the award has been improperly procured, as alleged by the Petitioner- claimant.

Both the issues are decided in favour of the Petitioner-claimant.

Issue (6):

The award is to be made a Rule of the Court and a decree shall follow in terms of the award.

Judgment is pronounced according to the award, and a decree shall follow u/s 17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940.

No order is made as to costs in these proceedings.