DDA vs CDS Gujral

Mukul Mudgal, J.—This appeal challenges the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 7th August, 1997, by which the objections preferred by the respondents were dismissed but the interest awarded by the learned Arbitrator''s Award dated 23rd December, 1993 was reduced from 18% to 12%. The dispute between the parties arose from the construction work of 7,000 Dwelling Units at Trilokpuri Trans Yamuna area which involved a construction of 168 MIG and 56 LIG Houses.

The respondent being aggrieved had preferred a claim before the Arbitrator and the Arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 5,05,577.22 in favour of the respondent/contractor. The award was challenged before the learned Single Judge and as recorded by the learned Single Judge and not disputed in the pleadings in this appeal, the main thrust of the argument of the learned Counsel for the respondent was to Claim No. 3 under the Award.

Insofar as Claim No. 3 is concerned, the learned Arbitrator found as follows:

FAO (OS) No. 113/1998

page 1 of 3

(a) That the delay in the execution of work was caused entirely due to the respondent''s actions, as recorded under Claim No. 11 where it was found that the respondents did not hand over structural drawings and make available the electricity connection till even the expiry of the stipulated contract period though it was their contractual obligation to do so. The High Tension Electric Lines over a few blocks to be constructed under the contract were removed just near the expiry of the stipulated contract period.

(b) That in view of the above findings, it was held that the delay for the execution of the work was solely due to the respondents actions.

Accordingly, the respondent was awarded a sum of Rs. 1,12,185.40 under Claim No. 3 based upon the 20% labour element for execution of such work, as per the norms in the Trade.

In our view, the aforesaid payment was in relation to extra expenditure incurred on rise in emoluments of labour for the quantum of work executed after the expiry of the stipulated contract period. The Arbitrator has given a reasoned finding that delay in execution of the work was on account of breaches committed by the appellants. The High Tension Electric lines over a few blocks to be constructed under the contract were removed just near the expiry of stipulated contract period. The appellants did not hand over structural drawings for single unit blocks and make available the electricity connection till even expiry of stipulated contract period though the same was the appellants obligation in terms of the contract. Accordingly, there had been prolongation of work beyond the stipulated contract period because of delays attributable to the appellants.

The Arbitrator consequently held that the respondents were liable to be compensated for the same. The Arbitrator was fully justified in coming to the said finding. The Arbitrator was an expert in the field being a retired Additional Director General of CPWD. These findings in our view do not call for any interference by this Court. Moreover, no serious challenge has been made to this finding of the Arbitrator that the prolongation of work beyond the stipulated contract period was because of delays attributable to the appellants. We are also in agreement with the findings of the Arbitrator as regards Claim Nos. 5 and 6. Claim No. 5 was with regard to rise in wages of labour on account of statutory notification and Claim No. 6 is also on account of rise in wages of labour on account of statutory notification. Both these increases were statutory and came into force during the stipulated contract period itself. That being so, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that the Arbitrator was fully justified in awarding the claims under head 5 and 6.

We find no reason to interfere with the findings of the learned Single Judge and are in complete agreement with the said findings. Accordingly, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.