Corporate Service Plan India Private Limited vs Sony India Private Limited

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 10.04.2026
Judgment pronounced on: 29.04.2026

+ O.M.P. (COMM) 410/2023
CORPORATE SERVICE PLAN INDIA PRIVATE
LIMITED .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rakesh Khanna, Mr. Rohan
Khanna and Mr. Arvind Singh
Yadav, Advocates.

versus

SONY INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajat Joneja, Ms. Himanshi
Madan and Mr. Anmol Kumar,
Advocates.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN
J U D G M E N T
1. The present petition is filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration
and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short „the Act‟) impugning the award
dated 17.06.2023 (hereinafter „award‟) passed by the arbitral tribunal
(for brevity „tribunal‟).
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner company incorporated
under the Companies Act, 1956 is engaged in the business of customer
care management services, international warranty services and
business outsourcing services in India. The respondent company is
engaged in the business of distributing and marketing of mobile
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 410/2023 Page 1 of 21
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:15:27

phones, laptops and other electronic goods under the brand name
„Sony‟.
2.1 On 24.06.2013 the parties to the lis entered into an Accidental
Cover Agreement (for short „agreement‟) whereby the petitioner was
to provide Accidental Damage Cover (for brevity „ADC‟) for laptops
sold by the respondent. By an addendum dated 08.07.2013 the
hundred percent attachments of the laptops and the other items
mentioned therein were brought within the ambit of the cover. On
12.09.2013 a supplementary agreement was signed to include mobile
phones marketed by the respondent under the ADC programme. As
per the procedure prescribed under the agreement the respondent had
to provide the details of laptops and mobile phones to be covered by
ADC and pay the premium within stipulated time.
2.2 There were differences between the parties for enhancement of
the premium amount and for change in terms and conditions of ADC.
The petitioner on 13.06.2014 issued a notice terminating the
agreement with immediate effect. Pursuant to the notice, the
respondent issued customer communications that the ADC
programme shall cease to have effect from 01.07.2014. The
respondent insisted that the petitioner should honour the agreement for
laptops and mobiles sold till 30.06.2014. There was dispute between
the parties and the agreement provided for dispute resolution through
arbitration. Respondent invoked arbitration. The tribunal framed the
following issues:
“1. Whether the Respondent is under a contractual
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 410/2023 Page 2 of 21
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:15:27

obligation to honour the Accidental Damage Cover for
sales conducted by the Claimant up to 30.06.2014?
2. Whether the termination of Accidental Cover
Agreement by the Respondent is unilateral and in breach
of the said Agreement?
3. Whether the Respondent has acted in complete
violation of the terms and conditions of the Accidental
Cover Agreement?
4. Whether the Claimant is entitled to an award against
the Respondent for payment of interest @12% per annum
on the claimed amount?
5. Whether the Respondent is entitled to an award against
the Claimant for its Counter Claim of Rs.16,10,36,634/-
alongwith interest @18% per annum pendent lite and
thereafter till the date of payment?
6. Cost of the Arbitral Proceedings.”
2.3 The tribunal after considering the facts and evidence adduced
concluded that the respondent failed to comply with the terms and
conditions of the agreement of furnishing particulars of the products
sold each month and making timely payment of premiums. The
termination of the agreement with effect from 13.06.2014, was held to
be illegal and the agreement was held to be subsisting till 30.06.2014.
The proceedings qua the counter-claim made by the petitioner were
terminated for failure of the petitioner to share the fee payable with
respect to the counter-claim. Considering the volume of documents
produced, the tribunal appointed an expert to verify the claims with
reference to the documents and to determine the transactions. The
tribunal held that the petitioner is liable to provide ADC for laptops
sold till 30.06.2014. The expert made observations against certain
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 410/2023 Page 3 of 21
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:15:27

claims and these claims were not considered. The respondent was
awarded a sum of Rs.2,16,06,407/- for laptops covered under ADC
against a claim of Rs.4,69,07,500/-. The mobile phones for which data
and payment were received prior to 30.06.2014, were held to be
covered under ADC but the tribunal found it difficult to quantify the
phones sold during April 2014 to June 2014 for which the premium
was paid in July 2014. The amount assessed by the expert was
reduced by fifty percent and the respondent was awarded a sum of
Rs.9,75,54,755/-. The respondent was held entitled to a total of
Rs.12,41,20,902/- along with simple interest at the rate of eight
percent per annum with effect from 01.07.2014 i.e., the date after the
contract came to an end till payment is made. Hence, the present
petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there are
contradictory findings in the award. The tribunal recorded that the
respondent defaulted in complying with the terms and conditions of
the agreement yet proceeded to award the claim made for ADC. The
submission is that the tribunal erred in ignoring the fact that the
quantification of the claim was not done by the expert. Further that
neither the claims were proved before the expert nor evidence was
adduced before the tribunal to support the claims. Contention is that
the tribunal erred in relying on the expert report objected to by the
respondent. The grievance is that the tribunal went beyond the terms
of the agreement rendering the award patently illegal. The termination
of the agreement is defended being in accordance with the terms of the
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 410/2023 Page 4 of 21
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:15:27

agreement.
3.1 Reliance is placed upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in
the case of State of Rajasthan and Anr. v. Ferro Concrete
Construction Private Limited (2009) 12 SCC 1; Associate Builders v.
Delhi Development Authority (2015) 3 SCC 49; Ssangyong
Engineering and Construction Company Limited Vs National
Highways Authority of India (NHAI) (2019) 15 SCC 131; PSA Sical
Terminals Private Limited v. Board of Trustees V.O. Chidambranar
Port Trust Tuitcorin and Ors. 2021 SCC Online SC 508 ; Delhi
Airport Metro Express Private Limited Vs Delhi Metro Rail
Corporation Limited (2022) 1 SCC 131; Indian Oil Corporation Ltd.
v. Shrec Ganesh Petroleum Rajgurunagar (2022) 4 SCC 463 and
Union of India v. Bharat Enterprise 2023 SCC Online SC 369 to
buttress the argument that an arbitral tribunal derives its authority
from the contract and the award that ignores, re-writes or goes beyond
the contract or is based on no evidence is patently illegal and is liable
to be set aside under Section 34 of the Act.
4. Per contra, the tribunal considered the material evidence and
allowed the claims by relying upon the expert evidence. The
submission is that the petitioner had not objected to the expert report.
It is vehemently argued that annexure C-16 was the tabulated chart of
the claims and annexure C-17 comprised of the supporting documents.
Considering the volume of the documents, the tribunal rightly
appointed an expert to examine annexure C-16 and C-17. Reliance is
on the decision of the Supreme Court in UHL Power Company Ltd. v.
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 410/2023 Page 5 of 21
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:15:27

State of Himachal Pradesh (2022) 4 SCC 116 to fortify the
contention that it is within the domain of the arbitral tribunal to assess
the veracity of the expert report and no interference is warranted under
Section 34 of the Act for a possible alternative view. The contention is
that the termination of the agreement was not in consonance with the
terms of the agreement and was rightly held to be illegal. The decision
of this Court in Angel Broking Pvt. Ltd. v. Urmil Modi 2022 DHC
1730 is relied upon to argue that there cannot be re-appreciation of the
factual finding under Section 34 of the Act.
4.1 Lastly, it is argued that the scope of interference under Section
34 of the Act is limited and no interference is to be made if the
conclusion arrived at is a plausible one.
5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
relevant record with their able assistance.
6. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to quote the
relevant clauses of the agreement:
“2. THE DUTIES OF SONY
c) Sony shall pay WSP, the accidental cost cover
undertaken with WSP on monthly basis along with details
of laptop as one time charges against the consolidated
invoice issued by WSP. Only those laptops will be
covered, whose payment and details have been received
by WSP. The details of the laptops sold with the
accidental cover policy shall be shared on fortnightly
basis by Sony with the WSP. However, WSP has agreed
for the grace period of 15 days to be provided to Sony for
the above said purpose.”

Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 410/2023 Page 6 of 21
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:15:27

“4. PAYMENT TERMS
Sony to pay WSP @ Rs.449 plus service tax per Laptop
towards the premium amount for the Accidental Damage
Protection Cover.
In the event of any variation in the price during the
currency of this agreement, both the parties shall
mutually agree for such revisions.”
“6. TERMS AND RENEWAL/TERMINATION
This Agreement will commence on July 17th 2013 and
shall remain valid thru July 16th 2014 (Both days
inclusive).
Both the parties shall have the right to terminate this
agreement without cause by service a prior notice of 3
month's notice in writing to each other.
Both the parties shall have the right to terminate this
agreement immediately without serving any notice period
to each other in the event the breaching party is failed to
remedy the breach of the agreement in 15 (Fifteen days).
The said 15 (Fifteen days) shall be calculated from the
date of the issuance of the notice issued by the other party
to the breaching party for the remedial action.”
“14. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this
agreement, or the breach of any of the foregoing shall be
settled by arbitration in accordance with the rules of
Indian Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996. The
arbitration tribunal shall, consist of three (3) arbitrators,
one each appointed by the Parties and the third appointed
by the two already appointed arbitrators. The place of
arbitration, the same shall be in New Delhi The award of
the arbitrators shall be final and binding.”
“ Annexure – “A”
1. Accidental Cover Administration
a) The accidental cover policy shall concurrently run with
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 410/2023 Page 7 of 21
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:15:27

the standard manufacturer's warranty of 1 year, which
Sony provides to its customers.
2. Accidental Coverage
This cover provides complete protection to the product
including any kind of accidental damages (e.g. accidental/
liquid spillage/ broken / dropages, short circuits due to
electricity, etc are covered for the purpose of damages)
but will exclude battery, charger/ adaptor and/or the
accessories.
Reimbursements will be subject to only repair or
replacement of components covered under this program
and carried out at a Sony authorized service/ repair
centres for labour & parts.
3. Accidental Damage
Sudden and unforeseen accidental damage (i.e. in
consequence of being dropped or run over by a vehicle,
water logged, liquid spill or similar incidences) to the
Laptop during the period of risk.
In the event of total loss to the equipment, duly stamped
and signed declaration duly approved by Sony's engineer
to be submitted alongwith new replacement Invoice and
photograph of the damaged product, original invoice.
This Accidental cover policy does not/shall not cover the
cases of losses which is/shall be occasioned to the
product because of Acts of God. Acts of God means and
include- fire, flood, earthquake, storm, hurricane or other
natural disaster. Further this Accidental cover policy does
not/shall not over the cases of theft and/or burglary.
Replacement will be subject to only when the cost of
repair is beyond economical value and will be determined
by Sony engineer.
In the event of repairs of accidental damage, documents
required: Duly stamped and signed repair bill along with
original invoice

Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 410/2023 Page 8 of 21
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:15:27

Note:
In case of Total Loss, reimbursements against such losses
will be made to Sony as per the following deduction
schedule:
 Up to 3 months : NIL
 3 to 6 months : 10%
 6 to 12 months : 15%
4. Accidental Cover fee collection
Sony forwards WSP Identification numbers of Laptops to
be covered on monthly basis for registration under the
program.
The coverage shall commence from the date of sale of
laptop to the customer.
Only those laptops will get coverage whose payment and
details have been received by WSP. The details of the
laptops sold with the accidental cover policy shall be
shared on fortnightly basis by Sony with the WSP.
However, WSP has agreed for the grace period of 15 days
to be provided to Sony for the above said purpose.
5. Accidental Cover repair reimbursements
The claims are reimbursed to SONY for the above plans
on a monthly basis.
Claims submitted under the accidental cover programme
administered by WSP will be reimbursed subject to-
receipt of complete claim documentation duly signed and
stamped by repairer and will include
a. Parts replaced at EDP(end dealer price) rates
For the purposes of this Agreement, EDP shall mean and
include the Authorized Service Centre ("ASC") Buying
price -inclusive of VAT/CST) + ASC Margin @15%.
b. Labour as per the Sony's Flat Rate Manual @750 +
Service Tax”
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 410/2023 Page 9 of 21
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:15:27

7. It would be relevant to note that the petitioner is referred to as
WSP in the agreement. Clause 2(c) of the agreement provides that
only those laptops would be covered under ADC for which the details
and payments have been received by the petitioner. The respondent
had to share the details of the laptops sold on fortnightly basis
however, a grace period of fifteen days was provided for doing the
needful. Under clause 4 a sum of Rs.449/- plus service tax for each
laptop was to be paid as premium for ADC. In case of variation in
price during the currency of the agreement the revision of the
premium would be made by mutual agreement between the parties.
Clause 6 deals with renewal and termination of the agreement. The
agreement commenced on 17.07.2013 and was valid till 16.07.2014.
The parties could terminate the agreement by giving three months
notice in writing. In case of a breach of the agreement, on failure of
breaching party to ratify the breach within fifteen days the agreement
could be terminated without serving any further notice. The period of
fifteen days was to be calculated from the date of issuance of notice to
the breaching party. Clause 14 provides for dispute resolution through
arbitration.
8. The clauses of Annexure „A‟ (for short „annexure‟) stipulate
that the ADC shall run concurrent with the warranty of the
manufacturer. The ADC provided protection against accidental
damages illustrated as accidental/liquid spillage/broken/droppages and
short circuit due to electricity but excluded battery, charger/adaptor
and/or the accessories. The amount for repairs or replacements carried
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 410/2023 Page 10 of 21
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:15:27

out at the authorized service centres of the respondent is to be
reimbursed. Accidental damage is defined as sudden and unforeseen
accidental damage. In case of total loss the procedure is prescribed in
clause 3 of the annexure. Under clause 4 the respondent on a monthly
basis had to provide identification numbers of the laptops to be
covered under ADC but the coverage was to commence from the date
of sale of the laptop to the customer. It is stipulated that ADC shall
cover only the laptops for which the payment and details were
received by the petitioner on fortnightly basis with a grace period of
fifteen days. The petitioner had the right to carry out an audit of the
claims to ascertain correct compliance of the self-authorization
requirement.
9. The tribunal noted the procedure to be followed for availing
ADC. The respondent had to pay the premium amount to the
petitioner for each item to be covered under ADC. The information
was to be given to the petitioner on a monthly basis with regard to the
sales of item covered under the scheme and detailing of the particulars
sufficient to identify the items to be covered. The ADC was for one
year in the case of laptops and six months for mobile phones. On
repair of the damaged products the invoice of expenses incurred was
to be forwarded to the petitioner within a specified period. For
coverage under the scheme two conditions were: (i) payment of
premium and (ii) furnishing of details for identification of the item
covered. In case of violation of any of these conditions the item was
not to be covered under ADC.
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 410/2023 Page 11 of 21
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:15:27

10. The tribunal took into account that the respondent failed in
providing identification details and making payment of the premium
within stipulated time thereby breaching the terms and conditions of
the agreement. The petitioner from the date of the agreement
continuously requested the respondent to comply with the terms and
conditions. The respondent virtually admitted non-compliance of the
mandatory requirements of the agreement. This finding is not under
challenge and has attained finality. The stand of the respondent that
the petitioner waived compliance of the conditions was rejected for
failure to produce the amended conditions or an agreement altering the
terms and conditions. There was no evidence to substantiate that the
petitioner even intended to alter the terms and conditions of receiving
identification details of products and payment of premium within the
stipulated time. It would be relevant to quote following paragraph
from the award:
“74. It, therefore, follows that the Claimant was a
defaulter in the matter of compliance of the terms and
conditions of the contract to make payment of premium
on a monthly basis and furnish particulars to the
Respondent of its products sold each month which were
covered under the scheme. It cannot be said that the
insistence on payment of the premium in advance and
furnishing of particulars on a monthly basis were not of
any significance, because the Claimant cannot insist that
the obligations undertaken by the Respondent should be
carried out by it even before the premium in respect of
the product was deposited with the Respondent. The
transaction was similar, though not identical, with an
insurance policy where on payment of premium the risk
is covered, and compensation shall be paid only if there is
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 410/2023 Page 12 of 21
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:15:27

no default in the matter of payment of premium. In the
instant case the obligation to compensate undertaken by
the Respondent arose only when the terms and conditions
of the claim were complied with by the Claimant, which
included payment of premium in advance.”
11. Before proceeding further it would be fruitful to reproduce the
relevant portion of the order of the tribunal dated 18.08.2016
appointing the expert and detailing the terms of reference:
“The following terms of reference are also finalized:
1. Annexure C/16 contains the tabulation of claims of the
Claimant and Annexure C/17 are the documents
supporting the said claims. These documents have to be
examined and verified according to the claims. It has to
be further examined by the expert whether Annexure
C/17 is in accordance with Annexure C/16. (Claimant)
2. Clause 2 specifically required that the repair or
replacement of components be carried out at a Sony
authorized service/repair centre. Therefore, the expert
may peruse Annexure C/17 to verify if the repair
jobs/replacements were carried out at the authorized
service centre of the Claimant. (Claimant)
3. The expert may also verify whether or not the details
given in Annexure C/16 like ASC name, ASC code, Job
number, Purchase date, Model code, part details etc.
relate to the invoices/service job sheets filed as Annexure
C/17. (Claimant)
4. Whether or not Annexure C/17 contains document duly
stamped and signed by the repairer and falls within the
ambit of Clause 5 of Annexure A to the Agreement which
inter-alia sets out the part cost and labour cost. (Claimant)
5. Ascertain the date of purchase of the product (period of
coverage starts from purchase date i.e. 1year in case of
VIAO laptop and 6 months in case of XPERIA mobile
handset) and further to ascertain when and how the date
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 410/2023 Page 13 of 21
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:15:27

of purchase was communicated to CSP for registration of
the product under the coverage; ascertain and segregate
all claims filed beyond the coverage period. (Respondent)
6. The serial number/model/ IMEI identification details of
the product against which accidental claim has been made
by SONY; the date on which the said identification
details were sent by SONY to CSP for registration of the
product. Whether identification details are reflected on
the product in the picture of the product. Segregate the
claims of products which cannot be identified from their
serial number/model/IMEI numbers. (Respondent)
7. Ascertain the date of payment of ADP price by SONY
for registration of the product under the accidental
coverage as a part of Annexure C-16 and C-17.
(Respondent)”
12. The tribunal considering that there were over thirty-five
thousand transactions to be examined entrusted the task to the expert
to consider the claims in terms of the reference. The report filed by the
expert was objected to by the respondent and not by the petitioner.
The tribunal bifurcated the report in two parts. Firstly the transactions
against which there were observations made by the expert and
secondly those where no comment was recorded. The tribunal
recorded a factual finding that apart from the report of expert the
respondent had led no evidence to prove the case and if the report of
the expert to which the respondent objected is discarded there is no
evidence on record. The tribunal accepted the expert report without
specifically deciding the objections, especially keeping in view the
fact that there were allegations of bias, the expert having gone beyond
the terms of reference and influence of the petitioner on the expert. In
spite of this, the tribunal proceeded to award claims under some of the
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 410/2023 Page 14 of 21
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:15:27

heads, accepting the expert report subject to the observations made in
the award. The acceptance of the expert report without dealing with all
the objections and in the absence of evidence to substantiate the claim
renders the award unsustainable.
13. The tribunal while dealing with the issue of the claim to be
awarded factored that the respondent failed to timely share the details
of the products sold and to pay the premium. The payments for
January 2014 and February 2014 were made in April 2014 instead of
being made on a monthly basis and the identification details of the
mobile phones sold in February 2014 were given to the petitioner on
05.05.2014. The data of the laptops for the month of March 2014 was
sent on 06.05.2014. The identification details of the mobile phones
sold in the month of March 2014 was forwarded but the premium was
not paid. In view of ongoing negotiations between the parties for
enhancement of the premium both the parties were held to be at fault
for delay in payment of premium. Further the parties mutually agreed
that the premium would be retrospectively enhanced to Rs.504/- per
laptop including service tax. The tribunal noted that the petitioner
accepted payment on 30.05.2014 at the enhanced rate. It was held that
the delay in payments with regard to laptops occurred due to
negotiations. The petitioner was held to be bound by the
understanding dated 30.05.2014 wherein it was agreed that the
premium qua laptops would be Rs.504/- per laptop w.e.f. 01.03.2014
and that the principal agreement and first addendum in a varied form
shall continue.
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 410/2023 Page 15 of 21
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:15:27

14. So far as the mobile phones are concerned the IMEI numbers
were to be supplied at the end of the month after the sale of the mobile
phones. Inspite of the fact that there was no issue of premium amount
for mobiles the tribunal proceeded beyond the terms of the agreement
to grant a thirty-day grace period to the respondent to provide data and
to pay the premium. The tribunal erred in holding that the mobile
phones would be covered under ADC for which the payments and
details were received prior to termination of the agreement i.e.,
30.06.2014. This tantamounts to rewriting the terms agreed between
the parties and the tribunal going beyond the terms of the agreement
vitiates the award of patent illegality.
15. The Supreme Court in Ssangyong Engineering (supra) held
that the arbitrator cannot travel beyond the terms agreed between the
parties or can rewrite the clauses of the contract. The relevant
paragraph of the judgment is reproduced below:
“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 [Associate Builders v.
DDA, (2015) 3 SCC 49 : (2015) 2 SCC (Civ) 204] ,
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).”
(emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 410/2023 Page 16 of 21
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:15:27

16. The undisputed fact is that the quantification of the claim was
not done by the expert. The contract was to indemnify the damages
accidentally caused to each of laptop or mobile and it was not a case
of a lump sum claim. The tribunal instead of determining the number
of mobile phones sold in April, May and June 2014 that were not
covered under ADC proceeded to deduct fifty percent of the amount
assessed by the expert. The basis for such deduction is not recorded. It
would be apposite to note that difficulty in calculation cannot be
equated with impossibility and hence the reason recorded for resorting
to guesswork is not in accordance with law.
17. The award of tribunal is contradictory having held that there
was breach of terms and conditions by the respondent yet the laptops
and mobile phones were held to be covered under ADC.
18. Looking from another angle, clause 2(c) of the agreement
provides that payment of the premium on a monthly basis along with
details of the laptops is to be shared on a fortnightly basis with a grace
period of fifteen days. Only those laptops were covered for which
payments and details were received by the petitioner. It cannot be lost
sight of that the parties may have been negotiating for revision of
premium for laptops but the obligation to provide identification details
was not in issue and the details were not provided in time. This
requirement continued to operate as a condition for coverage under
ADC. It was not the case of respondent that the details furnished to
the petitioner during the period were not accepted. The relevant
portion of clause 2(c) is quoted below:
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 410/2023 Page 17 of 21
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:15:27

“2. c) … Only those laptops will be covered, whose
payment and details have been received by WSP. The
details of the laptops sold with the accidental cover policy
shall be shared on fortnightly basis by Sony with the
WSP ...”
19. The termination of the agreement was held to be illegal for non-
compliance with clause 6 of the agreement. Three months notice was
required for termination of the agreement and in case of breach of the
contract the agreement could be terminated after fifteen days of the
failure of the breaching party to take remedial measures. The notice
served by the petitioner was for terminating the agreement with
immediate effect but no notice was served upon the respondent to
ratify the breaches of the terms and conditions. Considering that the
respondent was agreeable to termination of the agreement with effect
from 30.06.2014 the agreement was held to subsist till 30.06.2014.
20. The issue of the contract being in force and an item being
covered under ADC are two different aspects. In spite of the
termination of the agreement having been held to be illegal, the
agreement subsisting between the parties till 30.06.2014 ipso facto
shall not cover all the laptops and mobile phones sold by the
respondent. The awarding of the ADC claim by the tribunal despite
holding that the respondent had admitted non-adherence to the
mandatory twin conditions for ADC renders clause 2(c) of the
agreement otiose. In other words until the twin conditions are satisfied
that is timely payment of premium and furnishing of details, the item
shall not be covered. The subsistence of the agreement does not
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 410/2023 Page 18 of 21
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:15:27

dispense with compliance of these conditions.
21. Section 31(3) of the Act mandates a reasoned award. The
tribunal after holding that there was breach of terms and conditions
has not recorded the basis for quantifying the amount claimed. The
award is in violation of Section 31(3) of the Act.
22. The experts in the cross-examination [questions 7 and 15] stated
that the quantification of the claim was neither done nor proved and it
was not ascertained that the damage was accidental. The deposition of
the experts coupled with the unchallenged finding recorded by the
tribunal that apart from the expert report no evidence was adduced by
the respondent is fatal to the award.
23. The tabulated claims were supported by the sale invoice, repair
bill and the declaration for damage. The onus was on the respondent to
prove that the repairs were consequent to the accidental damage. It
would be pertinent to note that filing of invoices for repair in itself is
not a proof to support the claim and even as per the terms of the
agreement the petitioner could audit the claims. The decision relied
upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Ferro Concrete
Construction Private Limited (supra) lends support to the contention
of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The relevant paragraph of the
judgment is reproduced below:
“55.While the quantum of evidence required to accept a
claim may be a matter within the exclusive jurisdiction of
the arbitrator to decide, if there was no evidence at all and
if the arbitrator makes an award of the amount claimed in
the claim statement, merely on the basis of the claim
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 410/2023 Page 19 of 21
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:15:27

statement without anything more, it has to be held that the
award on that account would be invalid. Suffice it to say
that the entire award under this head is wholly illegal and
beyond the jurisdiction of the arbitrator, and wholly
unsustainable.”
(emphasis supplied)
24. From the perusal of the record it is evident that neither the sale
invoice nor the repair bill indicates the cause of damage. The
accidental information form attached has a column for providing full
description of the accident. It is revealed during hearing that in some
of the accidental damage information forms the accidental damage is
not evident. In one of the accident forms in the convenience
compilation filed during the hearing the cause of accident is
mentioned as „noticed this gap while opening up the screen top, the
gap widened further on attempting to close it‟. In another form it is
recorded as „crash by mobile through a person‟. The damage to the
laptop or the mobile phones being accidental in nature remains
unsubstantiated for failure of the respondent to adduce evidence.
25. The customer had the benefit of ADC and warranty but for
making a claim under ADC the respondent had to prove that the repair
undertaken was covered under ADC and not under the regular
warranty. The respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving
accidental damage to laptops and mobile phones and this aspect was
also not within the scope of reference to the expert. The tribunal erred
in allowing the claim in the absence of evidence.
26. For reasons mentioned above the award suffers from patent
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 410/2023 Page 20 of 21
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:15:27

illegality and perversity. The petition is allowed. The award is set
aside.

AVNEESH JHINGAN, J
APRIL 29, 2026
„ha‟
Reportable:- Yes
Signature Not Verified
O.M.P. (COMM) 410/2023 Page 21 of 21
Signed By:HONEY
ARORA
Signing Date:30.04.2026
18:15:27