PGIMER Vs. KALSI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been filed seeking to challenge the order dated 17.04.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh whereby, the objection filed by the appellant herein under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short 'the Act') for setting aside the award dated 31st December, 1999, has been dismissed.

(2.) In short, the facts of the case are, that a contract for construction of Advanced Pediatrics Centre was allotted to respondent No.1-contractor by the appellant and in this regard, a contract agreement was drawn and executed by the parties. The work was not completed within time, as such, the final bill could not be raised for want of agreed measurements. Respondent No.1-contractor raised the dispute for arbitration and Sh. S.S. Mongia was appointed as the sole Arbitrator. Both the parties raised their claims and counter-claims before the Arbitrator, who came to pass the award dated 31th December, 1999. Aggrieved against the award, the appellant herein challenged the same under Section 34 of the Act before the Addl. District Judge, Chandigarh, who came to dismissed the objection by its order dated 17.04.2003, which order is under challenge in this appeal.

(3.) Mr. Vinod Bhardwaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant argues; that the Arbitrator has proceeded beyond the agreement by granting Rs.3 lacs in claim No.14 without any proof and has misread the evidence; that regarding claims No.1 and 2 the Arbitrator has awarded more payment than agreed between the parties; that claim No.19 is about interest and Section 31 of the Act deals with the same, but no reason has been given for allowing interest @ 18%, as such, finding of Addl. District Judge is not sustainable; that with regard to claim No.3 for the escalation, it is submitted that once market rate has been paid, the contractor is not entitled for escalation as per clause 12 of the contract; that similarly the finding of the arbitrator on claim No.7 cannot be sustained because the rates were approved by the Superintending Hospital Engineer and the same were accepted and forwarded by the Hospital Engineer, as such, these are deemed to have been accepted and presented by the Hospital Engineer; that with regard to claim No.8, it is submitted that the Arbitrator has worked out his own rates, without any reasoning and the same did not show any workable formula; and that similarly the approach of the Arbitrator and learned Addl. District Judge with regard to claim No.11 (Final Bill) cannot be sustained because the Final Bill can be submitted after joint measurements of the work. It is also contended that the Arbitrator cannot change the agreed terms of the contract. Regarding claim No.14, it is argued that there was a separate construction allotted to M/s Coxwell Domes, New Delhi and payment due to that company cannot be paid to the contractor/respondent No.1. The Arbitrator has awarded compensation and ignored the agreed terms of the contract for RCC payment as well as claims No.14 and 18.