GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. KHEM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent-claimant was awarded the work of extension of Ranhola Bridge at RD-30825 M Supplementary Drain in Delhi by the objector-petitioner. The designs and drawing for the bridge were supplied to the respondent-claimant by the petitioner-objector. The claimant completed the work in September, 1993 according to the designs and drawings so supplied by the petitioner-objector. Thereafter, the bridge was opened to traffic. Soon after its completion, the bridge structure showed signs of distress leading to collapse of one of its end span. Middle span also showed signs of distress. The failure of the structure, according to the petitioner-objector, was attributable to poor workmanship and use of sub-standard material by the claimant. The claimant, on the other hand, maintained that the structure had failed on account of inadequate and defective designs and drawings supplied by the petitioner-objector.

(2.) On matter being referred to sole arbitration of one Shri G.G.Shivdasani, a retired Chief Engineer of the petitioner-objector and on his entering upon reference, the parties filed their claims and counter-claims before him. The arbitrator, eventually, made and published his award dated 19.2.1999. The petitioner-objector filed its objections against the award on 27th of May, 1999 questioning the award allowing the claims of the respondent-claimant on the counts indicated therein and disallowing its counter-claims, mainly on the ground that the arbitrator had a biased approach and made the award ignoring the evidence placed on record, thereby misconducting himself and the proceedings. Accordingly, the petitioner seeks the award dated 19.2.1999 to be set aside with costs throughout.

(3.) The respondent-claimant, on the other hand, in his reply to the said objections pleaded that the pleas raised by petitioner-objector assailing the award are devoid of any substance and are, therefore, liable to be dismissed. It was also added that the objections raised by the petitiner-objector are beyond the scope of Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and are, therefore, liable to be disallowed on this ground as well.