NARESH KUMAR JHANGI Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this order I would be disposing of the objections filed by the respondent Delhi Development Authority by way of IA. 12524/92, against the award made and published by Sh. S. Rangarajan bearing No. ARB/SM/DDA/3/90 dated 23.11.1991. Petitioner had been awarded the work of construction of 256 MIG houses i/c internal development at Ashok Vihar, Phase-IV, Delhi vide agreement No. 24/EE/AGV/2/85-86/DDA. Disputes had arisen between the parties which were referred to the sole arbitration of the arbitrator by the Engineer Member.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that in making the award the learned arbitrator has ignored the agreement provisions and has acted contrary to them in respect of various claims. It is further submitted that the learned arbitrator has erred in ignoring accepted norms for computation and has erred in making the award in respect of claim for rebate. Besides, the arbitrator has grievously erred in appraising the evidence and ignoring the pleas raised by the respondent and in this process has committed errors apparent on the face of the record.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondent strongly assailed the finding in respect of Claim No. 10. The arbitrator had awarded damages amounting to Rs. 2,13,000.00 , (which has wrongly been given in the numerals as 2,01,3000.00 ). Counsel for the parties agree that the correct figure is Rs. 2,13,000.00 (rupees two lakh thirteen thousand only). Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the arbitrator has simply given the finding of the work having been prolonged by 22 months due to delays and breaches of the respondent. It is submitted that the arbitrator was required to give the reasons for reaching the said conclusion, which are missing. The argument, on the first flush, appears to be plausible and attractive. However, on a careful reading of the award in respect of the claim, it is seen that in the pleadings the claimant had set out the details of breaches on the part of the respondent due to which the work was prolonged, resulting in extra expenditure. It was also pleaded that there was no delay on account of the claimants and that is why the respondent granted extension of time without levy of compensation. The respondents had pleaded in response that since extension of time was granted without levy of compensation, no further damages were payable by them. It would be noticed that the respondents did not question the factum of default or delays. The contention of the respondents, it appears, was that having granted extension of time without levy of compensation, the petitioner/claimants were not entitled to any further damages.