JUDGMENT
S.C. Jain, J.
(1) The disputes which arose between the parties were referred to the sole arbitration of Shri Banarsi Dass, Superintending Engineer (Arbitration) 11 Dda as NN per terms of the agreement duly entered into between the parties.
(2) The Arbitrator entered upon the reference on 21.11.1985 and invited claims from the respective partics. After hearing the counsel for the parties and going through the respective claims and the evidence thereon, the Arbitrator made and published his award on 22.3.1990. Out of the seven claims submitted by the claimant Rattan Singh & Sons Pvt Ltd, the Arbitrator rejected claim No.1. Claims 5 and 6 were also dismissed as having been withdrawn by the claimants themselves. Against claim No.2 which was with respect to payment of amount under clause 1OC regarding the increase in labour rates, he allowed Rs 17012.00 against the claim of Rs 740.00 . Claim No.3 was also partly allowed to the extent of Rs-55123.34 as against the claim of Rs. 56565.95 towards deletion of reduction items. Claim No.4 was allowed to the extent of Rs. 19478.94 as against the claim of Rs 73009.41 towards the rate of extra substituted items. The Arbitrator allowed the rate of interest at 12% p.a.as against the claim of interest at 21%, on the awarded amount from the date of award till payment or till the passing of decree whichever is earlier.
(3) Notice of filing the award was issued. Dda respondent filed objections to the said award under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act (IA 5233/ 90) on 28.6.90 within the statutory period.
(4) The main objection raised by the respondent is that under clause 25, the Arbitrator was required to give reasoned award and in the present case the Arbitrator has not given a reasoned award.
(5) I have heard the counsel for the parties and gone through the record. Learned counsel for the Dda objector Ms. Anusuya Salwan, submitted that the findings of the Arbitrator in respect of claim No.2 i.e. the amount under clause 1OC are contrary to the law, facts of the case and errors of judgment are apparent on the face of it. The Arbitrator was required to give reasons but he has not applied his mind. He failed to indicate as to how and by what process he has arrived at the figure of Rs.l7012.00 .
(6) Regarding claim No.3, she submitted that the Arbitrator has ignored the provisions of Clause 25(b) of the Agreement which provides that the decision of the Chief Project Engineer regarding the rates of sub standard work would be final and would not be open to Arbitration. By entering into the controversy of the reduction of rates or sub standard work for which a decision has already been taken by the Chief Project Engineer, the Arbitrator has acted beyond the scope of his reference and exceeded his jurisdiction and has acted beyond the jurisdiction and as such the award of (his claim is liable to be set aside on this score alone. According to her (he Arbitrator has wrongly awarded Rs 55123.34 against this claim.
(7) She further argued that the finding of the Arbitrator with respect to claim No.4 awarding Rs 19478.94 is contrary to law and facts of the case. The Arbitrator failed to appreciate that the rates were properly derived under clause 12(iii) and as such the arbitrator had no authority to sanction any rate, as it was under the competency of the Department to derive the same as such by awarding Rs. 19478.94 the Arbitrator has acted contrary to the terms of the agtreement. The findings of the Arbitrator with respect to claim No.7 thereby awarding interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of award is also challenged on the plea that the Arbitrator is not a court and is not competent to award such an interest.
(8) As far as the legal proposition is concerned, there cannot be any dispute that when an award is to be a reasoned award, it need not be a judgment like that of a court of law. Detailed reasons are not necessary. The only requirement is that it must indicate the process of the mind of the arbitrator leading to the award. It must be quick, short and simple. The court is not required to scrutinise all the claims on the basis of material produced before the Arbitrator
(9) The court cannot sit as a court of appeal by reassessing the material on record. The Arbitrator is the sole Judge of the quality and quantity of evidence and it will not be open to the court to take upon itself the task of being a judge of the evidence before an arbitrator. In law the Arbitrator is made the final Arbiter of the disputes between the parties. The award is not open to challenge on the ground that the Arbitrator has reached wrong conclusion or has failed to appreciate facts. In Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. vs. Indian Carbon Ltd the Hon;ble Supreme Court observed :- “WHERE reasons for giving the award are stated in the award and no error of law could be pointed out in those reasons; there was no error of fact and the view taken by the arbitrator was a possible view to take; and the arbitrator has made his mind known on the basis of which he has acted; that is sufficient to meet the requirements even if it be reasons should be stated in the award. The award could not therefore, be set aside . It is one thing to say that reasons should be stated and another thing to state that a detailed judgment be given in support of an award. Even if it be held that it is obligatory to state the reasons, it is not obligatory to give a detailed judgment. Arbitration procedure should be quick and that quickness of the decision can always be ensured by insisting that short intelligible indication of the grounds should be available to find out the mind of the arbitrator for his action.”
(10) Keeping in view this proposition of law as has been laid down by the Supreme Court. I find that this award suffers from no illegality or irregularity. There is also no evidence on record to show that the Arbitrator has misconducted himself or the proceedings or acted contrary to the terms of the agreement or ignored the material evidence placed on record.
(11) The award in question is a reasoned award, though not a detailed judgment. Regarding claim No.2, the claimant raised this claim under clause 10C of the Agreement for enhancement of labour rates as per the notification issued by the Government during the relevant period. Before the Arbitrator, besides the claim of the clamant. notifications issued by the Govt in this regard were also placed.
(12) Even the respondent accepted the enhancement in labour charges and award of Rs 14459.00 under clause 10C to the claimant. The Arbitrator after going through the respective submissions made by both the parties, came to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled to Rs 17012.00 under clause 10C under claim No.2. It cannot be said that the finding of the Arbitrator is without any justification.. He had reached this conclusion on the basis of the submissions made by both the parties and the evidence available on record. It cannot be said that the award of this amount is without any basis.
(13) Regarding claim No.3 which is on account of reduction items, the claimant claimed Rs. 55123.34. The respondent resisted this claim under clause 25(b). The Arbitrator considered the contention of NN both the parties as is apparent from the award itself, while coming to the conclusion . There is no justification for recovery in reduction items to NN the extent of Rs 55123.34 and therefore, the Arbitrator rightly allowed this amount to the claimant. It cannot be said that the finding is without any basis or evidence.
(14) Regarding claim No.4, which is to the extent NN of Rs 73009.41 relating to rate of extra substituted items, the Arbitrator after interpreting clause 12(iii) based on Dsr 1977 came to the conclusion that as per clause 12(iii) they have to be based on Dsr 1977 plus 99.50% above. The Arbitrator has correctly found that the rates of these items have been correctly worked out by the claimant and award of Rs. 19478.94 cannot be said to be without any basis. If a clause is open to two possible interpretations, it is legitimate for the Arbitrator to accept one or the other interpretation and even if the court thinks that the other view is probable the court should not interfere.
(15) Regarding claim No.7, the Arbitrator has awarded interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the amount of the award from the date of the award till payment or passing of decree whichever is earlier. The Supreme Court has observed about the power of the Arbitrator and the Court to award interest in Gujarat Water Supply and Sewerage Board vs. Unique Erectors . No. illegality or irregularity has been pointed out about this finding of the Arbitrator awarding 12% interest from the date of award till payment or passing of decree whichever is earlier.
(16) In these circumstances. I find no substance in the objections filed by the respondent Dda and the same are dismissed. The award is made a rule of the court.
(17) The Dda shall also pay interest at the rate of 12% p.a. on the awarded amount till payment. No order as to costs.