C L GUPTA Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned counsel for the petitioner / objector has assailed the impugned award dated 03.01.2001 on several counts. The first count is that claim Nos. 1 and 2 have been clubbed with Claim No.3 and the Arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs.51,500.08 under the last of these heads, i.e., Claim No.3. Claim No. 1 pertains to the expenditure incurred by the petitioner during the period the site was not being made available to the petitioner, i.e., the period prior to the petitioner being able to commence the work as per the tender. Claim No. 2 pertains to the petitioner's alleged professional loss for making itself available for this project instead of undertaking some other projects whereby the petitioner could have made profits. Claim No.3 is in respect of the loss of profit on account of the petitioner not being permitted to complete the work. In other words, Claim No.3 is for the loss of profit on the balance work which the petitioner was not permitted to complete. The learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the learned Arbitrator held in favour of the petitioner under all the three claims, i.e., Claim No.1, Claim No.2 and Claim No.3. However, while making the award of compensation under these heads alongwith Claim No.3, he failed and / or neglected to award any compensation qua claim Nos.1 and 2 and only computed an 8% loss of profit on the work not done which entirely covers Claim No.3. According to the learned counsel, this implies that although a finding has been returned in favour of the petitioner in respect of Claim Nos. 1 and 2, no amount whatsoever has been awarded to the petitioner under the said two claims. The learned counsel for the petitioner also stated that Claim No.5 has not been dealt with properly inasmuch as escalation has not been allowed and he cited a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hyderabad Municipal Corporation v. M. Krishnaswami Mudaliar and Another: AIR 1985 SC 607 in support of this proposition.

(2.) Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that interest has not been awarded in respect of other claims and it has been awarded only in respect of claim No.4 without assigning any reason for this discrimination. Therefore, on all these grounds, the award is liable to be set aside.

(3.) Ms Salwan, who appeared on behalf of the respondent/DDA, submitted that the position is not as simple as has been sought to be portrayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. She submitted that the petitioner has been awarded compensation under all the claim Nos. 1, 2 and 3 together under Claim No.3. What has been awarded by the Arbitrator under Claim No.3 is not just qua the Claim No.3, but in respect of Claim Nos. 1 and 2. She submitted that the petitioner was unable to produce any evidence with regard to Claim Nos. 1 and 2 and, therefore, the Arbitrator has taken a reasonable view by awarding 8% of the balance work not done as reasonable compensation towards all the three claims. She also submitted that it is not as if interest has not been awarded because the Arbitrator has specifically awarded interest in respect of Claim No.4 and, therefore, it cannot be construed that the Arbitrator had not applied his mind to the question. Although, she submitted, the Arbitrator did not mention anything with regard to interest on the other claims allowed by him, by implication, it would mean that the Arbitrator had applied his mind and found them to be not tenable.