Facts: The Petitioner, a stockbroker, committed an inadvertent technical error by uploading incorrect PAN details for Respondent No. 1, an investor. This prevented the mandatory pledging of shares purchased under a Margin Trading Facility, leading the Stock Exchange to auction the shares. Respondent No. 1 filed a complaint via the SEBI Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) portal. A Conciliator, upon the failure of conciliation, issued a report mentioning an "admissible claim value" of Rs. 75,00,000 for the purpose of determining arbitration fees. Under a mutual misconception that this report constituted a binding "award" or "order" of payment, the Petitioner challenged the report before an Arbitral Tribunal, while the Respondent (a layman) defended it without filing a formal counterclaim, believing the money was already due. The Arbitral Tribunal issued a split verdict; the majority treated the Respondent's Statement of Defence as a counterclaim and awarded Rs. 23.30 lakhs based on the share price on the date the error was rectified.Procedural Posture: The Petitioner filed this Commercial Arbitration Petition under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, seeking to set aside the majority award of the three-member Arbitral Tribunal.Issue: Whether the Arbitral Tribunal was justified in awarding compensation to the Respondent despite the absence of a formal counterclaim, and whether the award of "notional loss" was patently illegal or perverse.Holding: Yes, the majority award is sustainable. The Court upheld the award, finding that the unique circumstances and mutual misconception justified the Tribunal's decision to prioritize substance over form.Reasoning: The Court reasoned that both parties had consistently treated the Conciliator's report as a determined liability. The Petitioner itself referred to the report as a "claim passed" in its pleadings and did not raise the specific ground of "lack of counterclaim" in its Section 34 petition. Given that the Respondent was a layman and the Petitioner's liability was admitted, the majority Tribunal correctly looked at the "contents" rather than the "form" of the Statement of Defence. Furthermore, the Court held that while quantification of loss involved some guesswork, the Tribunal's approach of using the share price on the date the broker's error was corrected was a conservative and reasonable yardstick, not warranting interference under the limited scope of Section 34.