VISHAL ENGINEERS AND BUILDERS Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimant-petitioner was awarded the work of development of land at Rohini Phase II, SH: C/o.13.5 mtr. and 9.0 mtr. road in 2nd Phase treatment in Sector 13, Pocket A to F in Rohini vide agreement No.50/EE/RPD-3/90-91. The work was scheduled to start on 5th April, 1991 and was to be completed by 4th July, 1991. A dispute arose on the claims. On the request of the petitioner Engineer-Member of the respondent appointed Shri S.C. Kaushal as sole arbitrator vide letter dated 16.6.1993. Shri S.C. Kaushal, S.E. (Arbitration II), the sole arbitrator filed his award dated 25.4.1994. Notices of filing of award were issued to the parties. Both the parties have filed their objections. I.A.2032/95 and the petitioner has filed objections vide IA No.2705/95.

(2.) One of the objections of the respondent/DDA relates to the extra claim for brick flooring in herring bone bond. This item of extra work was initiated by the Engineering Incharge of the work with the plea that the same would be executed at site but the bond followed for brick work on edge flooring by the petitioner was zig zag bond. These facts were brought to the notice of the learned arbitrator vide Ex. R-1. The learned arbitrator committed misconduct by ignoring the same. The learned arbitrator further committed misconduct in awarding interest under Claim 5(b) and (c) at the rate of 12% per annum.

(3.) In response to the said objections, it is contended by the opposite side that the objections of the respondents are not tenable in law. The learned arbitrator ought to have allowed the claim at the rate of Rs.2.61 per sq. mtr. as against the rate of Rs.2.16 per sq. mtr. allowed in the award for the market rate for this item was Rs.3.18 per sq. mtr. It is submitted that the arbitrator has not ignored Ex.R-1 and therefore, the arbitrator has not committed any misconduct in awarding Rs.16,707.00 . The claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs.26,000.00 at the rate of Rs.3.18 per sq. mtr. at market rate. It is denied that the arbitrator has committed misconduct in awarding the interest.