R K ANEJA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the disputes had arisen under the contract for construction of 208 S.F.S. Houses at Block-B Kilokari vide Agreement No. 15/EE/ED5/A/84-85 between the claimant and the Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "the Objector"). The said disputes between the parties were referred to the sole arbitration of Shri S.S.Kaimal. The Arbitrator after hearing the parties published his award on 14th May 1992 allowing certain claims of the claimants. The Objector felt aggrieved with the said award and filed its objections against Claim No. I, Items 1. i. 1.2 and 1.2.13 and Claims No.2,3,4,5 and 8. At the time of hearing, it was agreed between the parties that no oral evidence need be led and the record of the arbitrator be read in evidence. The claimants have pointed out that in the award itself there is a totalling error inasmuch as the total of the amount awarded under various claims Nos-1,2,3,4,6 and 8 comes to Rs.4,70,946.01 and not Rs-3,87,911.81. This fact of totalling error has been acknowledged by the counsel for the Objector also. It is a matter of arithmatical error which can be corrected. Accordingly it is directed that the AwardbereadasoneforRs.4,70,946.01P.

(2.) THE Objector has alleged that the arbitrator has misconducted himself and the proceedings. Primarily the attack is on the arbitrator either having not supplied reasons or the reasons where recorded did not disclose the application of mind on the part of the arbitrator or indicated that he had considered the material placed on record.

(3.) UNDER Claim No.3 also the reasons for awarding an amount of Rs. 1,32,283.00 due to increase in the cost of material in respect of work carried out after 12th October 1985are duly given and it has been held by the arbitrator that such delay/prolongation was on account Of additional purchases by the respondent and even the basis for calculating the amount has been duly set out For that reason, I am not in agreement with the counsel for the objector on this claim. The objection is, therefore, rejected.