The need to prove loss to recover liquidated damages and the arbitrator's power to award interest on damages from the date of cause of action till the date of the award.

1. By this petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act, 1996 (for short “the Arbitration Act”), the petitioner has impugned the arbitral award dated 21st February, 2012, thereby allowing claim nos.1 to 4 and interest thereon made by the respondent. Some of the relevant facts for the purpose of deciding this petition are as under :

2. The respondent herein was the original claimant, whereas the petitioner herein was the original respondent to the arbitral proceedings.

3. The petitioner had undertaken the Mundra Delhi Pipeline Project, at the estimated cost of Rs.1623.00 crores. The petitioner appointed M/s.Engineers India Limited as the project consultant, who invited single public tender for composite works (mechanical, electrical & instrumentation) for terminals and stations at Awa, Ajmer and Jaipur vide bidding document No.654/T-159/05-06/VKG/07 under two bid system. The respondent emerged as the lowest bidder.

4. On 7th July, 2006, the petitioner issued a Fax of Acceptance in favour of the respondent at the total cost of Rs.19,95,30,359.78 with a completion period of 7 months from the date of issuance of the said Fax of Acceptance.

5. On 14th July, 2006, a kick off meeting was held at the headquarters of the said project consultant and most of the construction drawings were handed over to the respondent at the meeting. It was the case of the petitioner that there was delay attributable on the part of the respondent in carrying out the said work. Some of the delay was attributable due to non-arrival of pumps at site and late release of revised cable schedule for which a time extension of seven weeks upto 31st March, 2007 was granted to the respondent on the application made by the respondent. According to the petitioner, several jobs were pending even upon the expiry of the extended date of 31st March, 2007. Some time in the month of June, 2007, HT power job was completed by the respondent. The job was finally certified by the project consultant as completed on 12th November, 2007 after a delay of 33 weeks from the extended date.

6. Dispute arose between the parties. On 11th February, 2011, the Chairman & the Managing Director of the petitioner appointed the learned arbitrator, who entered upon the reference vide letter date 21st February, 2011. Pursuant to the directions issued by the learned arbitrator, the respondent filed its statement of claim along with supporting documents on 31st March, 2011 making 10 claims. On 5th May, 2011, the petitioner filed its reply along with supporting documents. The petitioner and the respondent filed further pleadings by way of rejoinder and sur-rejoinder respectively before the learned arbitrator. None of the parties led any oral evidence before the learned arbitrator. The learned arbitrator held four meetings. On 21st February, 2012, the learned arbitrator allowed claim nos.1 to 4 and rejected claim nos.5 and 6. The learned arbitrator directed the petitioner to pay interest at the rate of 9% p.a. on the claims awarded and rejected the claim for cost of arbitration.

7. The petitioner has impugned those four claims awarded by the learned arbitrator with interest in the present petition filed under section 34 of the Arbitration Act on various grounds.

8. Insofar as claim no.1 is concerned, Mr.Siodia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the original statement of claim filed on 31st March, 2011, the respondent had claimed a sum of Rs.1,91,11,408/-, insofar as this claim is concerned. The said claim was revised by the respondent on 18th November, 2011 to Rs.71,37,666/-. The respondent further revised its claim to Rs.9,50,590/- when the petitioner showed the bank statement showing payment of Rs.61,87,076/- on 3rd August, 2009. He submits that the respondent did not produce any documentary evidence in support of the final amount claimed under claim no.1 for Rs.9,50,590/-. The petitioner had filed reconciliation statement being Exhibit R 5-A befo