S BEDI CONSTRUCTION CO Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this order I shall dispose of petition/suit filed by the petitioner for making the award dated 26.9.1994 rule of Court and objections filed by the respondent assailing the award whereby the learned Arbitrator had allowed the claims of the petitioner.

(2.) THE claimant raised 21 claims before the Arbitrator. Claim no.1 was in respect of unpaid bills. The Arbitrator allowed this claim to the tune of Rs.1,59,881/ -. The respondent has not objected to this claim. Claim No.2 was for sum of Rs.6,550/ - on account of recovery of rebate. This rebate was claimed by the respondent on account of timely payment of the running bills in terms of the contract. Against this claim, the learned Arbitrator allowed a sum of Rs.3,374/ -. The objection of respondent is that the amount has been awarded without discussing as to why the rebate claimed was not admissible. Similarly, claim no.3 was made by the petitioner for sum of Rs.4 lac on account of increase in labour rates and prices of material like bricks, brick tiles, badarpur and other building materials under Clause 10C. The claimant then modified its claim to Rs.2,61,725/ -. The learned Arbitrator observed that the claim of the petitioner was justified to the extent of 50% and allowed him Rs.1,30,860/ - Similarly, claim no.4 was made by the claimant for Rs.81,300/ - against overweight of steel issued by the respondent. The learned Arbitrator observed that claim was justified to the extent of 50% and allowed Rs.40,650/ -. Claim No.8 was made by the claimant on account of disposal of surplus earth by mechanical transport as per direction of the respondent. The learned Arbitrator observed that he considered the claim of the claimant justified to the extent of 50% and allowed Rs.20,875/ -. Claim no.12 was for on account of providing Jamuna Sand under floors for Rs.16,000/ -, which the claimant had modified to Rs.15,698/ -. The learned Arbitrator upheld the claim of the petitioner to the extent of 50% and awarded Rs.7850/ -. Claim No.13 was for Rs.1 lac on account of unjust recoveries made by the respondent for repairs to flats, reduction or penal recoveries after the maintenance period. The learned Arbitrator held that he considered the amount of Rs.54,470/ - as the justified claim. Claim no.14 was made by the claimant alleging short payment for marble chips, flooring. He initially made this claim for Rs.42,000/ - and then modified it to Rs.40,400/ -. The learned Arbitrator upheld the claim to the extent of 50% and awarded an amount of Rs.20,200/ - towards this claim. Claim No.16 was for Rs.1,20,000/ - on account of expenses on watch and ward. The learned Arbitrator allowed almost 50% of this claim and awarded Rs.58,650/ - Claim No.17 was made by the claimant for Rs.4,00,000/ - on account of additional expenditure incurred on staff conveyance etc. due to delay in execution of the work. The learned Arbitrator allowed 25% of this and held that the petitioner/claimant was entitled to Rs.1 lac. Claim No.18 was on account of damages for rise in prices due to prolongation of the contract period. The Claimant had made a claim of Rs. 15,00,000/ - The learned Arbitrator considered that the earlier claim made by the petitioner under Clause 10Cwas only for labour, bricks etc., whereas building work included a number of other materials, the rate of which had also increased. He held that the claimant was not entitled to 15,00,000/ - and was entitled to Rs.3 lac. In Claim no. 5, the claimant had claimed additional amount of Rs.6,000/ - for plastering the exterior walls above 10 m height alleging that he had to put extra labour above 10 m height. The learned Arbitrator allowed the claim to the tune of Rs.5734/ -.

(3.) IT is settled law that the Arbitrator is bound by the contract between the parties and he cannot act in a whimsical manner. All claims which are made by the contractor before the Arbitrator are to be decided in terms of the contract and not according to the whims and fancies of the parties or of the Arbitrator. Where price escalation clause is provided in the contact, the price escalation can be granted only in accordance with that clause and not otherwise. Where the prices are quoted for the different items and the contract is entered into at the prices as mentioned by the contractor, there is no ground for giving any benefit to the contractor for fluctuation in price except as provided in the contract and this fluctuation of the price in terms of contract can only be granted in terms of the contract. Clause 10C under which the petitioner had made claim no.3 reads as under: