JUDGMENT
Vijender Jain, J.
(1) The award has been made by the arbitrator, Mr. R.K.Sarkar, Deputy Chief Engineer (Construction) D.W. Northern Railway on 6.8.1993. The respondent – Uoi has filed objections to the award.
(2) Learned counsel for the respondent – Uoi Mr. Bhatia, has contended that the award has to be set-aside in view of the grant of claim Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Mr. Bhatia has contended that the award on these claims are outside the terms and conditions of the contract and arbitrator has acted without jurisdiction. He has also contended that the arbitrator has misconducted the proceedings by awarding this amount.
(3) On the other hand, Mr. D.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the claimant-petitioner has contended that claim No. 2 was for expenses incurred for clearing the site and on account of no work executed apart from this head, claim No. 2 was for whatever work executed and no payment made also. The arbitrator on this head awarded a sum of Rs. 9750/= out of total claim of Rs. 25,000/=. Mr. Sharma has contended that arbitrator after taking into account as to actual work executed at the site and no payment was made by the respondent has awarded only Rs. 9750/=. Learned counsel for the claimant-petitioner has taken me to the claims filed before the arbitrator in which on account of work executed but no payment made, a sum of Rs.9750/= has been awarded by the arbitrator. The arbitrator has declined other claims and granted a sum of Rs. 9750/= only. In reply to the said claim, it was not disputed by the respondent before the arbitrator that this amount was not spent by the claimant-petitioner. In view of the specific reply filed by the respondent, I do not see any infirmity in the award of the arbitrator in relation to claim No. 2.
(4) Learned counsel for the respondent-objector has further argued that the award of a sum of Rs. 25,000/= towards claim No. 3, i.e. `claim towards expenses incurred on clearing the site and approaches to these sites’, is wrong as the arbitrator had no material before him to award any amount under this head. He has argued that same is also legally not tenable in view of the reply filed by the respondent to the claim No. 3 of the claimant-petitioner. Under this head, the claimant has demanded the amount for the portion of the work from Km. 180.600 to Km. 180.900 up line, claimant further demanded that for clearance of the site an amount of Rs. 16,000/= was incurred by the claimant and on account of claimant’s making approaches the claimant incurred a sum of Rs. 10,000/= and that is how the claimant-petitioner was claiming a sum of Rs. 26,000/=. In reply to the said claim, the respondent has filed vague reply to the flowing effect. “Claim of Rs. 26,000/= is wrong and denied. Claimant is bound as per the tender schedule and cannot make any false claim.”
(5) In view of the aforesaid reply and the material placed on record, I do not find as to how the arbitrator has misconducted the proceedings or there is an error apparent on the face of the award.
(6) Similar is the plea taken by the learned counsel for the respondent with regard to Claim No. 4 which was claim for a sum of Rs. 50,000/=, arbitrator has allowed a sum of Rs. 20,000/= to the claimant-petitioner on account of `loss/forfeiture of advances given to the land owners because of the failure of the department to hand over the site in time’. No tenable reply has been given to this claim by the respondent. I do not find any force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondent-objector that in terms of the terms and conditions of the contract amount was not to be paid to the claimant-petitioner. In view of Claim No. 4, which is at page-11 of the record of the arbitrator, and reply thereto filed by the respondent, I do not see any infirmity in the award.
Objections of the respondent-objector are dismissed. Award is made rule of the Court. Decree is passed accordingly. Mr. Sharma states that no payment has been made by the respondent till date in terms of the award and, prays that the claimant-petitioner is entitled to interest and has cited the case Babu Lal Barwa vs. D.D.A. & Others in support of his contentions.
— *** —
(7) Following the ratio laid down in Babu Lal Barwa’s case (supra), petitioner-claimant shall be entitled for interest at the rate of 15% p.a. from the date of award till its realisation.