An arbitrator's award will be upheld by the court if it is found to be valid and in accordance with the law, and if the arbitrator has given sufficient reasons for his or her decisions.

K. Ramamoorthy, J.

( 1 ) THE Claimant M/s Anant Raj Agencies was entrusted with the work by the Delhi Development Authority of providing additional facilities in resettlement colony, Mangolpuri Shahdara Internal water supply system for individual connection Group-IV. Disputes arose between the parties and Mr. K. D. Bali was appointed as Sole Arbitrator by the Engineer Member on 7. 2. 1994.

( 2 ) ON 9. 1. 1995 the Arbitrator passed the award. There were in all seven claims. The Arbitrator decided in favour of the Claimant claim Nos 1,3,4,5,6 and 7 and claim No. 2 was rejected by the Arbitrator.

( 3 ) THE DDA has filed its objection challenging the award. In claim No. 1 the Claimant made a claim of Rs. 5,72,300. 00. The Arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 1,27,776. 00.

( 4 ) THE objection filed by the DDA is that the claimant has not produced any evidence to substantiate the claim and the Arbitrator had awarded the amountion mere surmises and conjuctures and the award is unreasoned one contrary to Clause 25 of the agreement.

( 5 ) THE Arbitrator has referred to the documents filed by the claimant in particular C-22 which shows the increase in the rate of price and that has not been disputed by the DDA. The Arbitrator has given cogent reasons for his decision and I do not find any reason to interfere with this part of the award.

( 6 ) IN claim No. 3 the claimant has claimed a sum of Rs. 30,000. 00 for loss suffered on account of the failure of department to make available the water mains for connection with newly laid line. Accordingly, the claimant claims Rs. 30,000. 00 i. e. Rs. 1000. 00 per day for 30 days. The Arbitrator after discussing the evidence on record said "according to me the loss suffered by the claimant in this account cannot be more than Rs. 664. 00 per day being the wages of one Supervisor, ten fitters/ plumbers, ten Beldars and consequently, I award Rs. 19,920. 00 to the Claimant under this claim".

( 7 ) IN the objection petition the DDA has said that no reasons have been given by the Arbitrator and the decision is contrary to the Clause 25 of the agreement between the parties. The Arbitrator has considered all the relevant facts to coming to the conclusion and I do not find any error in the award passed by the Arbitrator granting Rs. 19,920. 00 to the claimant.

( 8 ) IN claim No. 4 the claimant claimed a sum of Rs. 5,19,500. 00 due to site expenses and other overheads. The Arbitrator had awarded a sum of Rs. 1,29,895. 58.

( 9 ) THE objection by the DDA is that the Arbitrator has not given any reasons but only given his conclusion and the Claimant was not entitled to make any claim on this head. The Arbitrator has given elaborate reasons for coming to the conclusion and referred to Exhibit R-20 wherein the Engineer in charge of the work has admitted that the delay was due to the respondents and the claimant was not any way responsible. The Arbitrator has come to the conclusion that the delay was attributable only to the respondents. The Arbitrator in arriving at the figures has given the following reasons :

THE claimant has claimed the site expenses and overhead expenses while calculating @ 10% of the total value of the work to be done, whereas according to me for such type of work 5% of the total value of work is a reasonable amount to be spent upon the site and overhead expenses, that is to say on the tender amount of Rs. 36,67,640. 00 the total site and overhead expenses in six months would be Rs. 1,83,382. 00 i. e. Rs. 30,563. 00 per month should be the expenses for the site and overhead expenses for the said work Since the work has been prolonged for 8 and half months, the claimant could have incurred an amount of Rs. 2,59,791. 16 as additional expenses for the maintenance of site and overhead expenses keeping in view of the doctrine of mitigation in mind, according to me. Rs. 1,29,895. 58 would provide adequate compensation to the claimant for the reimbursement of the infructuous expenditure incurred by the cl

Click Here to Read the rest of this document