@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
Dr. M.K. Sharma, J.@mdashThe petitioner was awarded a contract by the respondent for restoration work of Vigyan Bhawan , New Delhi. During the execution of the aforesaid work , disputes arose between the parties with regard to work carried out by the petitioner and the respondent rescinded the contract by its letter dated 19.5.1993 by taking action under Clause-3 (a, b & c). As disputes arose between the parties relating to the aforesaid work, the said disputes were referred to the sole arbitrator Sh. S.S. Juneja, who was appointed by the appointing authority in terms of clause 25 of the agreement, to decide and make an award regarding the said disputes. The arbitrator received evidence adduced by the parties and upon hearing the parties made his award on 18th May, 1995. The aforesaid award was filed in this court as against which, an objection has been filed by the respondent-UOI. The said objection was listed before me for arguments and disposal, on which I heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as also the counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. The objection is pressed before me by the counsel appearing for the respondent as against the award in respect of claim Nos.1 and 2.
3. Counsel appearing for the parties drew my attention to the award passed by the arbitrator in respect of the aforesaid two claims as also the records of the arbitration proceedings in support of their contentions.
CLAIM NO.1
Claim No.1 relates to Rs.2,14,145.72 seeking payment of the said amount on the ground of work being done for the aforesaid amount, but not paid. The arbitrator awarded a total amount of Rs.1,45,000/- in respect of the aforesaid claim and thus, the claim of the petitioner in respect of the balance amount was rejected by the arbitrator. According to the respondent the gross amount of the bill was Rs.1,07,167/- whereas the contention of the petitioner is that total value of the work done was Rs.2,17,925.93. The petitioner issued a legal notice to the respondent wherein the petitioner submitted its claim for Rs.2,91,096.72. The said legal notice is C-19 in the records. The said total claim for Rs.2,91,096.72 consists of total value of work done as Rs.2,17,925.93, Rs.50,000/- on account of providing door shutters, Rs.3,000/- on account of cartage and another Rs.20,000/- towards the earnest money deposited by them. The arbitrator held that since door shutters were not handed over to the department, the claimants are not entitled to the payment of Rs.20,000/- and accordingly, it was held that the total amount payable to the petitioner was Rs.2,37,925.53, out of which the petitioner was already paid a sum of Rs.78,711/- and Therefore, the balance amount payable was Rs.1,59,214. Considering that there could be some variation on joint measurement, the amount payable to the petitioner was assessed and restricted to Rs.1,45,000/-, which was awarded in favor of the petitioner.
Counsel for the respondent submitted that the bill stated to have been sent by the petitioner was never received by the respondent. She also stated that payment of an amount of Rs.1,07,167/- had been made to the petitioner for the work done on the basis of measurements recorded by the respondent as the petitioner failed to appear for recording the measurements.
On perusal of the records, I find that the respondent has not filed on record any details of measurements in support of the contention that the gross amount of bill was Rs.1,07,167/-. The arbitrator also found the contention of the respondent that the bill was never received, to be baseless. The bills were submitted by the petitioner on 28.5.1993 along with the measurements to the department and a legal notice being C-19 was also sent to the respondent. The respondent neither placed on record the details of the measurements for the work done by the petitioner and as recorded by them nor did it send any reply to the legal notice of the petitioner. On scrutiny of the evidence on record, the arbitrator came to the aforesaid conclusion whereby he has awarded a sum of Rs.1,45,000/- to the petitioner. I do not find any error in the conclusion arrived at by the arbitrator and , Therefore, I uphold the said award passed by the arbitrator in respect of claim No.1
Next objection raised by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent is in respec of award passed by the arbitrator so far claim No.2 is concerned.
CLAIM NO.2
Claim No.2 relates to payment stated to be for damages on account of labour remaining idle and the claim was for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The arbitrator , after considering the records of the case, awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- in favor of the petitioner, as against the aforesaid claim.
4. Counsel for the respondent submitted that no independent evidence has been placed on record by the petitioner in support of the aforesaid claim. She further submitted that in respect of the claim for idle labour, actual books of accounts of the petitioner should have been produced as that would have only disclosed whether such labourers were sitting idle, to whom payment was made.
In support of her contention, the learned counsel relied upon two decisions of this court in Kochar Construction Co. Vs. Union of India & Another reported in 1994 (1) ALR 269 and Surinder Kumar Vs. New Delhi Municipal Committee reported in 1992 (23) DRJ. In my considered opinion, the decisions and the ratio relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent are not applicable and distinguishable on the facts and circumstances of the present case.
5. In the case of Kochar Construction Co. (Supra), it was held that the arbitrator cannot make an award in respect of a claim when it is a case of no evidence at all. In the case of Surinder Kumar (Supra), this court held that if the decision of the arbitrator awarding amount against any claim is not based on any evidence or admitted facts, the same is liable to be set aside. In the present case , the documents are available on record in the nature of receipts/vouchers indicating that payments were made by the petitioner to its labourers during the period in which the site could not be handed over to the petitioner. All the vouchers are on record, which are collectively marked as Ex.C-20. Thus, to the aforesaid claim of the petitioner, there are supporting vouchers and thus, it cannot be said that the aforesaid claim, to the extent it is awarded by the arbitrator, is not supported by the documentary evidence and, Therefore, this is not a case where there is no evidence at all, as in the cases of Kochar Construction Co. and Surinder Kumar Vs. NDMC (supra).
6. Counsel for the respondent also relied upon clause 19(d) of the General Conditions of Contract and contended that as the petitioner failed to take steps in accordance with the aforesaid provisions and did not submit the list containing the number of labourers employed by it, the claim is not admissible. I have also perused the contents of clause 19(d), which is meant for a different purpose altogether. Besides, the respondent did not take any action as against the petitioner for alleged failure and/or violation of clause 19(d). In that view of the matter, the said provisions cannot, in my considered opinion, assist the respondent for refuting the aforesaid claim.
7. The arbitrator, on consideration of the records found that the petitioner is entitled to Rs.20,000/- on account of labourers remaining idle. Although the claim here is shown to be a claim for damages, use of the aforesaid word ''damages'' for the said claims, in my considered opinion, is a misnomer and the claim is actually for losses suffered by the petitioner on account of labourers remaining idle due to non-availability of working site. The claim of the petitioner is supported by documentary evidence on record, atleast to the extent of Rs.20,000/-, for which the claim is allowed. Therefore, no error is committed by the arbitrator in awarding the aforesaid amount in favor of the petitioner.
8. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, there is no merit in this objection and the same stands dismissed. The award passed by the arbitrator is, accordingly made a rule of the court. Let a decree be drawn up in terms of the award. In addition, the petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 15% p.a. from the date of decree till realisation.
