1. Heard Mr. R.K. D. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. R. Husain, learned counsel representing the respondent/claimant.

2. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 14/06/2012 passed by the learned District Judge, Kamrup, Guwahati in Misc. (Arb) Case No. 642/2008 dismissing the application filed by the present appellants under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 praying for setting aside the arbitral award dated 29/09/2008 passed by the sole arbitrator. In order to appreciate the contentions of both the parties in this appeal, it would be apposite to briefly state the factual back ground of the case set out by the respective parties before the learned sole Arbitrator.

3. The respondent No 1 was the claimant. The case of the respondent No1/ Claimant before the Sole Arbitrator, in brief, is that it is a proprietorship concern represented by its proprietor Shri Kangkan Dutta and carries on business of Builders, Architect, Engineer and Designers under the name and Style of M/s Oriental Engineers. Pursuant to a tender floated by the appellants, the work of earth filling for the Railway siding at Senchoa was awarded to the claimant for an amount of Rs. 1,37,61,881/-,. Accordingly, an Award Letter dated 28/06/2004 was issued to the claimant where after, a contract agreement was also signed by and between the parties on 06/07/2004.

4. As per the terms and conditions of the contract, the claimant /contractor was required to commence the work within 10(ten) days from the date of receipt of the award letter and thereafter complete the same within three months i.e. on or before 07/10/2004. However, despite the fact that the claimant had mobilized all resources to start the work yet, due to inclement weather conditions , the work could not be commenced on time as the “borrow pit” from where the earth was required to be extracted as well as the dumping grounds were completely submerged under water due to heavy rainfall. It is also the case of the claimant that the progress of the work was hampered due to poor weather conditions, which was a factor totally beyond the control of the claimant. That apart, due to water logging of the borrow pits the claimant was also compelled to carry earth from a lead (distance ) upto 16 kms thereby, incurring additional expenditure not contemplated under the contract agreement. As per the schedule appended to the Award Letter, rates for lead of upto 7 kms only was provided. However, since the claimant had to carry earth from a distance beyond 7 kms hence, the claimant had claimed extra rate for the quantity of earth carried from the additional distance.

5. It was the further case of the claimant that taking note of the factors that had delayed the progress of the work, the departmental authorities had extended the validity period of the contract from time to time and eventually, by issuing the letter dated 24/06/2005, the claimant was allowed to complete the work by 20/07/2005. The claimant had asserted that it had completed the work in the month of September, 2005 where after joint measurement of the work was also carried out in October , 2005. Therefore, the claimant had requested for payment of the work done. Notwithstanding the same, department had denied such claim of the claimant and on the contrary stated that 17451.08 cum of earth work was still incomplete. By issuing the letter dated 17/11/2005 the authorities had fixed 24/11/2005 for carrying out joint measurement of the work so as to assess the balance quantity of work that, according to the respondents, still remained to be executed by the claimant. By the letter dated 05/12/2006, the claimant had requested the departmental authorities to prepare the final bill and to make payment by taking into account the 20,000 cum (approx) of earth which had been