(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State of Goa, against the order of the Civil judge, Senior Division, Quepem dated 20/8/1992 by which the learned Civil judge, Sr. Division has dismissed all the objections raised by the appellant against the Award dated 20/12/1991. The contract in respect of which the disputes arose between the parties was entered into by the appellant State of goa and the respondent for construction of Left Bank Main of Canal of salaulim Irrigation Project for Quepem Taluka. Apparently, there was a delay; Claiming that the State of Goa was responsible for the delay, the respondent preferred a claim for the increased expenditure and costs because of the delay. The claim was for a sum of Rs. 39,41,024=55. The Arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 22,01,414=46.
(2.) THE Arbitrator framed as many as 9 issues, which read as follows : 1) Do the claimants prove that the respondents committed the breaches of contract conditions as alleged in paragraph Nos. 7. 1 to 7. 6 of the statement of claims ? 2) Do the claimants prove that they are entitled to a sum of rs. 6,51,000/-or any part thereof by way of final bill as claimed in claim No. 1 ? 3) Do the claimants prove that they are entitled to a refund of rebate as claimed in claim No. 2 amounting to Rs. 3,56,537-55 ? 4) Do the claimants prove that they are entitled to the payment of the sums of Rs. 16,38,297/-and Rs. 1,28,600/ respectively towards the cost of extra work done as claimed in claim Nos. 3 and 4 or part thereof ? 5) Do the claimants prove that they are entitled to compensation for extra expenditure incurred due to rise in prices of materials and labour charges as claimed in claim no. 5 or part thereof, the amount claimed being Rs. 2,51,000/-? 6) Do the claimants prove that they are entitled to compensation for loss suffered on account of idle labour, idle machinery/equipment, advances paid to workers and loss, as claimed in claim No. 6 or part thereof, the amount claimed being Rs. 5,09,831=50 ? 7) Do the claimants prove that they are entitled to compensation for loss suffered on account of overheads, profit and profitability as claimed in claim No. 7, or part thereof, the amount claimed being Rs. 6,69,879=18 ? 8) Do the claimants prove that they are entitled to interest @ 16 ? % past pandente lite and future, as claimed in claim no. 8 or part thereof ? 9) Do the claimants or respondents prove that either of them are entitled for costs of the arbitration proceedings or part thereof ? the learned Arbitrator answered those issues mainly in favour of the respondent. As stated earlier, the Civil Judge, Sr. Division, Quepem has rejected the objections raised by the State of Goa. Hence, this appeal.
(3.) THE learned Advocate General mainly attacked the findings in respect of claims No. 3 and 4 under which the learned Arbitrator has allowed the respondent's claim for controlled blasting and silt removal. According to the learned Advocate General, the Arbitrator has merely recorded a conclusion, without giving what can be called a "finding", and therefore, the award is vitiated being the result of gross non-application of mind and perversity. Indeed, the submission appears to be well-founded if one only reads what is written by the Arbitrator below claim Nos. 3 and 4. Under those claims, the Arbitrator has mainly referred to the claim pertaining to controlled blasting, but has, however, stopped at that point and then proceeded to render a finding on other issue, namely extra expenditure on account of silt removal. In our view, however, that is sufficient to vitiate the award since, as rightly pointed out by Mr. Dessai, the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent, the Arbitrator has rendered a finding in respect of controlled blasting at an earlier stage in the award, namely while dealing with (I) delay in giving site; (II) delay due to stoppage of work by local people; and (VI) delay due to controlled blasting directed by the Department. Reading it as a whole, it is clear that the Arbitrator has come to the finding that there was delay at the instance of the appellant State of Goa. There was resistance to the claimant by the local people from carrying out the work to excavate by means of blasting and that eventually, the claimant had resorted to controlled blasting as suggested by the Government. Thus brining about additional work increased cost.