C. Lal Gupta vs Delhi Development Authority
2001 Latest Caselaw 1805 Del

JUDGMENT

J.D. Kapoor, J.

1. Both the parties have filed objections to the award dated 5th January, 1987 which has been forwarded by the Arbitrator for making rule of the court but now the counsel for the petitioner does not press the objections filed by the petitioner.

2. It is settled law that scope of assailing the award is very limited. The court does not sit in appeal while examining the award and as such it is not a court to re-appreciate or re-appraise the evidence and disturb the finding of the fact or view of the arbitrator as to interpretation of terms of agreement even if such a view is erroneous. Unless and until there is complete non-application of mind and the Arbitrator traverses beyond the terms of the agreement or beyond the arena of the agreement, court should always be reluctant to interfere with the award. Otherwise the very object and purpose of settling of disputes by the alternative devise of Arbitration would stand defeated. The genesis is that parties choose their forum after exhibiting their full faith in the arbitrator as to his competence, impartiality and integrity. Thus, unless bias or misconduct is writ large on the face of the award, sanctity of the award should be maintained.

3. After testing the objections filed by the respondent on the anvil of the aforesaid principles and criteria, I find that none of the objections has substance as these do not project any bias or misconduct of irrational or unreasonable approach by the arbitrator.

4. For instance, claim No. 7 has been challenged solely on the ground that arbitrator has wrongly awarded Rs. 2505/- out of claim of Rs. 72,373/-. The contractor claimed payment for a quantity of 5688 sq. mtrs as against the quantity of 834.86 sq. mtrs. The arbitrator placed reliance upon the letters sent by the respondent to the effect that shuttering used by the contractor was not of proper quality to give proper finish as envisaged in item 3.14 of the contract and therefore claim of the contractor for payment of 5688 sq. mtrs is not justified. Admittedly the contractor was paid a part rate of Rs. 7/- for 834.86 sq. metres against the contracted rate of Rs. 10/-. The arbitrator has only granted the rate of Rs. 3/- which works out to Rs. 2505/-. Such a finding of the arbitrator is finding of fact and therefore is not to be scanned by way of appeal.

5. Similarly respondent has challenged claim No. 9 which is towards refund of 1/2% rebate. According to the respondent, Arbitrator was wrong in directing the respondent to refund a sum of Rs. 5929/- being the actual reduction on account of 1/2% rebate offered to the respondent by the petitioner for making regular monthly payments. A perusal of details of the payment made to the petitioner/claimant by the respondent would show that regular monthly payments for the months 6 to 10th, 13th and 14th were regularly made. The other payments were made as per work done by the claimant and therefore there was no unreasonable delay in making any payment to the petitioner.

6. The learned Arbitrator has relied upon Exhibit R-2 while allowing the claim of the petitioner which shows that regular monthly payments were not made to the petitioner. This award is neither beyond the terms of the contract nor does it project non application of mind.

7. To the same effect is the objection with regard the claim No. 13 which is toward payment of steel beyond deviation limit. As per Clause 12A of the agreement, the petitioner was entitled for payment of excess quantity of steel for 37390 @ Rs. 3.30 per K.G. as against contract rate of Rs. 2.50 plus 18.5% in case deviation was beyond 20%. Admittedly, the deviation was more than 20% and the contractor was awarded payment of excess quantity of 37390 kgms. @ Rs. 3.30 per kgm. The quantity of item 3.7 of the contract actually executed was 1,52,628 kgms as against the quantity of 96,032 kgm. in the contract.

8. If the court starts scrutinising the award on such minute detail and factual matrix, it would be committing error by assuming the role of appellate court. The interpretation of Clause 12A by the Arbitrator even if it is assumed erroneous, does not admit any interference.

9. The last objection of the respondent is with regard to claim No. 15 which was for payment of Rs. 8833/- incurred on watch & ward from 2.4.1980 to 20.8.1981. The petitioner intimated the respondent about this claim by way of letter dated 30.6.1981 (A-74). The respondent has neither rebutted nor sent any communication in exchange. According to the respondent, the question of paying expenses for watch and ward by the respondent for the aforesaid period did not arise as the petitioner did not handover the building complete in all respects during the said period as there were lot of defects which were to be rectified and there was some work yet to be executed by the petitioner and therefore for the delay in rectifying the defects, the petitioner was wrongly awarded.

10. The learned Arbitrator was justified in accepting the claim to the petitioner in view of the non rebuttal of the claim by the respondent as well as non-production of any evidence as to the delay in handing over the possession on the part of the petitioner.

11. In view of the foregoing reasons, objections are dismissed. Award is made rule of the court. Suit is decreed for the amount awarded against each claim with simple interest @ 18% per annum from 18.4.1984 till realisation.

12. With this order, petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act being S. No. 475A/87 stand disposed of.