An arbitrator has jurisdiction to award compensation to a contractor for extra expenditure incurred due to the prolongation of the contract and for loss sustained due to delay in the realization of the various sums claimed, even if the contract does not specifically provide for such claims.

P. VENKATARAMA REDDI, J.

( 1 ) IN these appeals filed under Section 38 of the Arbitration Act, the appellant-contractor is questioning the Judgment of the Additional Chief Judge, City Civil court in O. S. Nos. 133 and 140 of 1979. O. S. No. 133/1979 was filed by the appellant-firm under Sections 14 and 17 of the Arbitration Act to make the award dated 31 -3-1979 passed by the arbitrator a rule of the Court and to pass a decree in terms thereof. O. S. No. 140/1979 was filed by the Government of a. P. , the respondent herein, objecting to the award passed by the arbitrator under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act and seeking the relief to set aside the Award. The 2nd defendant in the suit is a retired Chief Engineer appointed by the Court on a Section 20 petition to act as an arbitrator in order to decide the disputes between the parties arising out of a contract for construction of Arts and science College building at Siddipet, Medak District.

( 2 ) THE Tender of the appellant was accepted in May, 1965 and the agreement was entered into on 22-5-1965. The value of the contract work awarded to the appellant was Rs. 11. 82 lakhs. The stipulated period for completion of the construction work was 15 months from the date of handing over the site. The site washanded over on 3-9-1965. The contract work prolonged upto February, 1971. The contract was finally determined by the Department under Clause 60 (c) of the A. P. Detailed Standard Specifications (herein after referred to as apdss ) which formed part of the agreement. The contractor threw the blame on the departmental officials for non-completion of the work within time and it is his case that the respondent committed breach of its obligations by delaying the furnishing of details, drawings, and other information, giving mark-outs etc. , necessary for the execution of work, non-supply of meterials within time and not providing the promised funds within time.

( 3 ) THE arbitrator entered on reference on 19-1-1978 and passed the award for a sum of Rs. 5. 68 lakhs. The appellant preferred as many as 18 claims, out of which 12 claims were allowed. He also awarded a sum of Rs. 1,07,500/- for compensation on account of loss sustained due to non-payment of money under various claims allowed. In all, a sum of Rs. 5,68,036/- was awarded with interest at 12% per annum from the date of reference i. e. , 13-9-1977 till the date of decree or date of payment, as the case may be. At the out set, the arbitrator held that the termination of the contract under Clause 60 (a) was invalid and all the amounts forfeited consequent on such termination shall be paid back to the claimant. The award was filed into Court on 16-2-1979. By Judgment dated 22-4-1980, the contractor s suit was decreed and the suit filed by the government was dismissed on the ground that objections were filed beyond time. This Court by its order dated 8-4-1983 in C. M. A. No. 113/1980 and C. R. P. No. 29/1981, set aside the decree of the lower court and directed the Court to dispose of the matter a fresh. Thereafter, the impugned Judgment was rendered by the learned Additional Chief Judge partly decreeing O. S. No. 133/1979 and partly allowing the objections filed in O. S. No. 140/1979. The suit was decreed to the extent of Rs. 2,40,536/ -. The amount awarded under Claim No. 5 (Rs. 1,64,000/-), Claim No. 6 (Rs. 56,000/-) and the compensation awarded under the Head b (Rs. 1,07,500/-) were set aside.

( 4 ) ASSAILING the correctness of the Judgment of the Court below insofar as it set aside the award in relation to the aforementioned claims, the present appeals are filed by the contractor. We will now proceed to deal with the disputed claims.

( 5 ) CLAIM No. 5: Under this head, the appellant claimed a sum of Rs. 2. 54 lakhs towards reimbursement of extra expenditure incurred by him in respect of the work done beyond the contractual period. The claim was laid on the basis that there was escalation in material cost and wages an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document