H. Dohil Construction Co.(P) Ltd. vs Delhi Electric Supply ...
1999 Latest Caselaw 644 Del

ORDER

Manmohan Sarin, J.

1. By this common order, I would be disposing of IA 11792/94 filed by the objector petitioner against the award dated 26.7.93 made and published by the arbitrator and IA. 9374/94, being objections to the award filed by the respondent.

2. The petitoner's case is that they had applied for grant of a permanent electric connection, but were sanctioned a load of 81.5 KW on a temporary connection. The claims made by the petitioner are based on the contention that by September, 1976, it had complied with all the requirements for grant of a permanent connection. However, petitioner was made to pay the higher tariff applicable for temporary connection resulting in loss. Petitioner, accordingly, filed claims and sought refund of excessive amount i.e. the difference in rate payable for permanent connection and the rate charged for temporary connection, besides the surcharge as levied and paid. General damages were also claimed.

3. I have heard Ms. Mittal on her objections to the award. Ms. Mittal has strongly assailed the findings of the learned arbitrator in holding that the petitioner did not comply with condition No. iv of para 4 (wrongly typed as No. vi) of the award, namely, "Submission of application cum agreement form and complying with other commercial formalities/payments (like security deposits)".

4. The learned arbitrator reached the conclusion that the petitioner has complied with the requirements of completing and handing over the rising mains. But, it had failed to comply with the conditions specified in condition No. iv above. Accordingly, the petitioner's claim for refund of excess amount paid for temporary connection charges was denied. Learned counsel attempted to urge that the finding of the arbitrator in this regard are erroneous. Iam afraid this is not the province of jurisdiction of this Court under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The findings of fact cannot be interfered with in these proceedings. This objections is without any merit.

5. The learned arbitrator has returned a finding in favour of the petitioner by allowing claims iii, v and viii. The arbitrator held that the respondent MCD could not prove that the surcharge and other levies that were imposed pursuant to the inspection carried out. The factum of the alleged inspection was dis-believed. The arbitrator, therefore, held that the levy of surcharge on the basis of higher connected load was illegal and bad in law. He, therefore, allowed claims iii, v and viii. A direction for refund was also given.

6. Learned counsel for DESU argued that there was enough evidence on record to reach a finding of the inspection having taken place and the billing should have been upheld. Here again the respondent is seeking to assail the finding of fact which is not permissible. Both the objections i.e IA. 11792/94 and IA. 9374/94 are dismissed.

7. The award has been perused by me. It is a well reasoned and analytical award. There is no infirmity or error in the award, leave aside the error apparent on the face of the record. Accordingly, the award is made a rule of the Court. A decree in terms of the award shall follow. The award shall form part of the decree.

8. Petition stands disposed of.