UNION OF INDIA Vs. R.K. TRADERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S.K. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel, Union of India, appearing on behalf of the appellant.

(2.) By means of the present Appeal, the appellant is challenging the order of the District Judge, Bareily, dated 4th March, 2013 by which he has rejected the objection filed by the Garrison Engineer-II, Bareily Cant, Bareily against the order of the award dated 9.10.1998, given by the sole Arbitrator Lt. Colenal S.B. S. Chauhan, awarding a sum of Rs. 1,39,400/= towards loss of profit, Rs.28,000/= towards claim for the work done, Rs.15,000/= towards loss of advance and Rs.30,000/= towards the expenses incurred into during the period when the work remained suspended.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Arbitrator has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the controversy in view of Section 870 of the General Conditions of the Contract (GCC), which clearly provides that the Arbitrator had jurisdiction to adjudicate only those claims or controversies in respect of which, the decision of any other authority, under the contract, is expressed to be final. Since in Clause 7 of the Act, internal remedy was available and the decision of the concerned authority was final, therefore, the learned Arbitrator had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter as it fell within the 'expected matters'. He further submitted that since the respondent-contractor failed to execute the contract, therefore, in exercise of power conferred by Clause 54 of I.A.F.W.-2249, the left over work was got completed through another agency, namely, M/s. Kunal Enterprises, Bareily, which was got completed on 24th February, 1998, but in getting the work completed through another agency, the department suffered a loss of Rs.3,69,468-50/=, thus, the contractor was liable to pay that amount to the department while instead of compensating the department by making award in favour of the department for the loss suffered by it, the award has been made in favour of the opposite party-contractor.