Premier Electrical Corporation vs New Delhi Municipal Committee
2001 Latest Caselaw 1656 Del

JUDGMENT

J.D. Kapoor, J.

1. This is a suit for making the award dated 12.2.91 rule of the court.

2. Respondent NDMC has challenged the award mainly on the grounds that the Local Commissioner, who was appointed by the arbitrator and on whose report the award is based, did not inform the respondent about the date of inspection except once. Admittedly, the Local Commissioner was appointed with the consent and approval of the respondent and the Local Commissioner also intimated the respondent about the dates of inspection. The respondent took part in the inspection only once. The objections were also filed by the respondent with respect to the report of the Local Commissioner.

3. It is contended by the counsel for the

4. It is contended by the counsel for the respondent that non intimation of the date by the Local Commissioner about the dates and time on which the measurements were to be taken, non-furnishing of copies of the report to the Local Commissioner to the respondent so as to facilitate the respondent to file the objections as well as non- production of the report of the Local Commissioner by the arbitrator with the award has caused serious prejudice to the respondent. It is further contended that the Arbitrator has misconducted himself by way of depriving the respondent from the opportunity of filing the objections to the correctness of the Local commissioner's report.

5. It is settled law that the court should not sit in appeal nor the court should re-assess, re-evaluate or re-appraise the evidence or material produced before the Arbitrator nor should the court interfere with the view of the arbitrator even if it is erroneous in less error perversity or non-application of mind is apparent on the face of the award.

6. The very fact that the Local Commissioner had intimated the respondent about the date of inspection and the respondent also participated in the inspection process, though only on one occasion show that the report of the Local Commissioner is not unilateral. The negligence on the part of the officials of the respondent in not participating in the subsequent inspections can not be made a ground for either setting aside the report of the Local Commissioner and for that purpose the award.

7. As regards the plea that the respondent was neither given the report of the Local Commissioner nor was intimated about the dates of subsequent inspection by the Local commissioner, the respondent has not filed any details as to the correctness of the report of the Local Commissioner. So much so the respondent has not even filed the measurement of the work as per its own reckoning. The challenge of the respondent as to the report of the Local Commissioner is vague, sweeping and general in nature.

8. Moreover, now the report of the Local Commissioner can not be undone nor can the measurements be re-assessed or reascertained as it is not possible to under take the measurement of the work done by the claimant. Thus, there is no other option left with this court than to accept the report of the Local Commissioner and as such the award.

9. For the forgoing reasons, I do not perceive any reason to interfere with the award. The same is accepted and made rule of the court. The suit is decreed for Rs. 6,20,595.25. It is stated that the suit amount was deposited by the respondent and is lying with the registry. However, the same be released to the claimant within one week.