IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an award passed by the Arbitrator must be based on evidence and should not ignore vital documents. The court emphasized the importance of evidence and the need for the Arbitrator to consider all relevant documents in reaching a decision.

1. The present petition is directed against the award dated 11.9.2012 vide which the claim petition filed by the respondent (claimant before the learned Arbitrator) was partly allowed. (Parties shall hereinafter referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Arbitrator for convenience).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the work for improvement/up-gradation of NH-88 i.e. Shimla - Bilaspur - Hamirpur - Nadaun - Ranital - Kangra and termination near Bhawan National Highway-20, Km. 95/0 to 105/0 was awarded by the respondents to the claimant on 7.12.2001. The work was to be completed within six months from the 15th day of the issue of the work order. The parties entered into a standard form of contract. The total amount of the award was Rs. 1,27,75,363/- . The claimant found that bitumen at 2.50 kg for applying a thick coat of 50 mm was not given in the schedule of quantity. He requested the respondents to approve it and consider it an extra item in view of road width and the frequency of the usage of the road, which would not allow semi-dense bituminous concrete (SDBC) to settle down. He told the Executive Engineer that the slushy portion of the road required treatment before execution of the work and asked the respondents to lay Kharanja Soling before laying bitumen and SDBC and include it as an item. The respondents failed to pay for the work resulting in the loss to the claimant. The road was full of undulation and the claimant asked for its rectification. He sent the final bill but the payment was not made. This led to the dispute between the parties and the matter was referred to the learned Arbitrator.

3. The claimant filed a statement of claim seeking payment of the final bill, payment towards correction of undulation in the road, correction of slushy portion by laying tack coat and application of another layer of bitumen, application of one layer between bitumen and SDBC, loss for late payment resulting into idle machinery, payment for prolongation of the work, interest and the cost.

4. The respondents filed a reply admitting that the work was awarded to the claimant. The claimant asked for the release of his final payment after seven years of the completion of the work. The matter was processed and it was found that the payment of the final bill was not made and the amount of Rs. 1,05,440/- was yet to be paid. National Highway Division was created in the year 2004 and no record was transferred to the division. The respondents came to know of the liability after receiving a letter from the claimant. A meeting was held with the claimant to settle the dispute; however, the claimant approached this Court for the appointment of an Arbitrator. The cost of the work inflated from Rs. 1,27,75,363/- to Rs. 1,43,18,996/- which is required to be approved. The payment would be made after the approval of the competent authority. The statement of claim was denied. It was asserted that work was executed as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. The work was entered in the Measurement Book and the payment of Rs. 1,42,13,556/- was made. No entry was recorded regarding the rectification of undulation and the claimant was not entitled to the payment of this amount. As per the record, 28 to 30 Bitumen Macadam (BM) was laid on 24.10.2002 and SDBC was laid on 25.10.2002. The claimant has caused the delay. The payment was made immediately after the receipt of the bills. The claimant failed to start the work in time despite repeated requests. There was no provision for providing 24% interest or the cost of arbitration. A counterclaim for Rs. 2,000/- for non-requirement of technical staff, cost of arbitration and interest was made.

5. The parties filed various documents in support of their claim and defence. Learned Arbitrator held that the final payment of Rs. 95,845/- was to be made to the claimant which was accepted by him. The security deposit of Rs. 4,00,167/- was also pai