R.P. Chaudhary vs Delhi Development Authority
2001 Latest Caselaw 1128 Del

ORDER

Vijender Jain, J.

1. Objections by way of IA 3511/89 were filed by the respondent/DDA to the award made by Shri G.R. Hingorani, arbitrator appointed by the respondent who was the Engineering Member as well as Former Chief Engineer of the respondent . Ms. Salwan, learned counsel for the respondent has contended that the finding of the arbitrator is contrary to law and facts of the case. The claimant/petitioner filed as many as 18 claims out of which the arbitrator allowed claim nos. 2,4,6,7,9,10,12,14,15 and 18 only. Ms. Salwan has vehemently contended that the finding of the arbitrator in respect of claim no. 14 is erroneous on the face of it as the arbitrator has not recorded reasons for allowing the claim of the claimant. She has contended that the provision of Clause 12(a) can be attracted if restriction provided under clauses (a) and (d) were made collectively. She has contended that there was no basis for accepting rate at the rate of Rs. 4.95 per k.g.

2. I have heard arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties. The law regarding arbitration is well settled when the parties have chosen an arbitral forum in exclusion of ordinary civil law remedy this court will not sit in appeal over the award made by the arbitrator. In the case before hand, the respondent had appointed the arbitrator, who was a Engineering Member as well as a former Chief Engineer of the respondent. He was well acquainted with the facts as well as the works and the disputes involved inter se the parties. The arbitrator has given his reasoning with regard to the award of the claim of relation to claim No. 6. The arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs.43,746/- out of a claim of Rs. 50,000/- which was on account of excess amount recovered on account of the cement used in the work. The arbitrator has taken note of the fact that the recovery was not justified as the Chief Engineer of the respondent on 3.3.1986 vide document (Ex.R17) had not justified the said recovery. Therefore, the arbitrator awarded the amount of Rs. 43,746/-.

3. Now coming to the award of a sum of Rs.2,41,915/- by the arbitrator in relation to claim no. 14, which was for Rs. 5,01,020/-, the said claim towards extra amount for 24,445 kgs. at the rate of Rs.2.05 per k.g. beyond deviation in the quantity of the re-inforcement for which a claim was made by the contractor. The claimant has raised a claim under clause 12(a) for Rs.6/- per k.g.. However, the arbitrator considered the rate of Rs.4.95 per k.g. as reasonable for the extra quantity instead of Rs.6/- per k.g.

4. I find no force in the arguments of learned counsel for the respondent that provision of clause 12 (a) will not be attracted. There was no denial of the quantity from the side of the respondent and on the basis of the fact that extra quantities were utilised by the claimant instead of awarding Rs.3.97, the arbitrator awarded Rs. 4.95 per k.g. thereby turning down the claim of the contractor that he was entitled under clause 12(a) at the rate of Rs. 6/- per k.g. I do not see any infirmity with the said finding.

5. I do not want to substitute my opinion for that of the arbitrator. This Court will also not go into thought process of the arbitrator as he was a well experienced and conversant person with regard to the dispute before him. I do not see any merit in the submissions of the respondent. The objections are, therefore dismissed. Award is made rule of the Court. Decree in terms thereof is passed.

6. With regard to the rate of interest award by the arbitrator, if the respondent/DDA makes the payment of the amount under Award within a period of eight weeks no interest shall be charged from the date of decree till its payment. If the payment is not made within eight weeks, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of decree till its realisation.

7. Petition stands disposed of.