ORDER
Manmohan Sarin, J.
1. Respondent Delhi Development Authority has filed objections to the Award dated 28.8.1993 under Sections 30 & 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act, 1940. Petitioner had been awarded the contract for construction of 120 LIG and 80 MIG Flats in Pocket D/1-C, Janakpuri, New Delhi. A contract agree- ment was execute between the parties which contained the arbitration agree- ment. Disputes between the parties were referred to the sole arbitration of Mr. S. Nagraj, Arbitrator appointed by the respondent Delhi Development Authority. The arbitrator, after entering upon reference and giving notice to the parties and completion of pleadings and several hearings made and published his Award on 28.8.1993.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent Delhi Development Authority, Mr. V.K. Sharma, apart from assailing the award on the ground that it had failed to give reasons and had only stated the conclusions, urged that it was vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record and could not be sustained.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents assailed the Award in respect of Claim No.1. Learned counsel, in particular, relied on the Award made by the arbitrator and para 1.32 there of, which reads as under :-
1.3.2. For substituted item 3, rates sanctioned are erroneous under the agreement provisions. The correct rates payable ( as claimed) are (a)Rs. 244,90, against Rs. 240,14 paid, and (b) 247,35, against Rs. 242,58 paid. Quantities involved are (a) 260.90 cum, and (b) 193 cum and there is no dispute regarding the quantities.”
The precise submission of the learned counsel is that the arbitrator has simply stated that the rates sanctioned are erroneous under the agree- ment provisions and has then proceeded to award the rates which he considered correct. In other words, the arbitrator has failed to disclose as to what the error is and how he has awarded, what he labels as, correct rates. The law in this regard is fairly well settled. The arbitrator is only required to indicate his thought process. It is not necessary for the arbitrator to give in detail his mental meanderings or the computation by which the figure arrived at is given.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. R. Rajappan, to satisfy the conscience of the Court has further explained that the arbitrator has simply, in accordance with Clause 12 of the Agreement, applied the enhance- ment percentage as given in the agreement to the DSR rates to arrive at the correct rate payable, there being no dispute with regard to quantities . Petitioner had duly produced his computation and analysis before the arbitrator, based on which, after applying the enhanced percentage as per agreement to DSR rate, the correct rate was arrived at. This position is not disputed before me.
In view of the foregoing, I am not inclined to remit the award on account of lack of reasons. This would also apply to the Award in respect of the substituted items at 1.3.3.
Claim No. 3:
5. Learned counsel for the respondent next assailed the Award in respect of Claim No.3, wherein the arbitrator had computed and awarded Rs.30,000/- as sum payable on account of delay in release of the security deposit. Petitioner had furnished the security deposit in the form of a bank guaran- tee of Rs.1.0 lacs. The said security deposit was liable to be released within six months of the date of completion, i.e. 25.10.1985, but was actually released only on 5.10.1990. This entailed a delay of nearly four years, three months and ten days. The arbitrator, while computing, has reckoned it as four years delay only. The arbitrator computed the amount of Rs. 30,000/- by taking 50% of the amount of bank guarantee for calculating the interest amount and awarded interest at the rate of 15 percent for four years. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the award of the arbitrator is rather ad hoc. He has taken 50 per cent of the amount and also not taken into account the interest that could have accrued on the deposit made by the petitioner in FDR for obtaining the bank guarantee.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the claim made by the petitioner was for 100% of the amount, which was required to be kept as minimum balance in the account, i.e. Rs.1.0 lakh for the furnishing of the bank guarantee and the loss to the petitioner was much higher. Refer- ence has also been invited to C-75 and C-79 by which the respondent was duly notified of the loss being incurred on this account. The arbitrator, in his assessment, reduced the same and taken as 50 percent of the original bank guarantee amount and computed the interest thereon.
While it is correct that petitioner did not lead evidence of the precise loss, yet it cannot be assailed as a case of no evidence. The arbitrator has on appraisal of the available evidence, made his assessment by reducing the bank guarantee amount to 50% for computed the interest. It cannot be said that the award suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. The objection to claim No.3 accordingly fails.
Claim No. 7
6. Learned counsel for the respondent objects to the award against claim No. 7. He first made a general submission that the amounts awarded are excessive and have not taken into account the quantities as per the final bill. This submission ignores the fact that the items covered under 7.3 are those relating to earth work foundation and brick work foundation. These are works which are executed at the initial stage and the quantities executed would be those which will also be reflected in the final bill. Learned counsel then submitted that the arbitrator had failed to specify as to the basis for applying different percentages to the computation. The percentages applied are those which are as per the DSR and the rates also are as per the DSR. The objection has no merit and is, therefore, dis- missed.
Claim No. 8.
7. In this case, the date of the Award was 16.2.1981 and the stipulated date of completion was 25.11.1981. The work is actually stated to have been completed on 24.10.1985, entailing a delay of nearly four years. The re- spondents had granted extension of time without levy of compensation. The learned arbitrator has noted the various breaches and held that the respondents were in default and breach of their obligations under the agree- ment and the petitioner was, thus, entitled to be compensated for the additional expenses incurred and loss suffered on account of prolongation of work. The arbitrator has given a reasoned award and, in fact, has noted that the total work executed after the actual date of completion amounted to Rs. 69,64,228/-. The learned arbitrator has computed the compensation by applying different criteria, viz, based on the rates of tenders that had been issued and accepted for similar works during the relevant period, on which he arrived at a figure of Rs. 14.76 lacs. The learned arbitrator based on the price under method had arrived at a figure of Rs. 17,59,646/-.The learned arbitrator, after deducting the amount of payment made under 10-C due to statutory rise in prices of labour and material, arrived at the figure to be awarded. The arbitrator adopted the lower of the two amounts and awarded the sum of Rs.12,58,000/-.
8. Learned counsel for the respondents attempted to assail the findings of breach on the part of the respondent and submitted that the arbitrator had ignored the evidence produced by the respondents and on a proper appraisal of evidence the findings of breach on the part of respondent could not be arrived at. It is not the function of this Court to reappraise the evidence in exercise of jurisdiction under Sections 30 & 33 of the Indian Arbitration Act. The award in respect of this claim does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. The award is liable to be maintained.
9. The arbitrator has awarded interest @15 per cent on the amount of Rs. 63,285/-, which is the sum total of the various claims on which interest has been held to be admissible for varying periods, starting from 24.4.1986 to 20.8.1993, amounting to Rs. 66,000/-. Learned counsel for the respondent assails this award, relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in Yogesh Kant Bhageria Vs. Deepak Jain-1999(v) AD Delhi 860, wherein it was held that the respondent was entitled to get interest on the princi- pal amount @ 12% .p.a. from the date of demand till filing of the suit and additional interest at the same time till the suit was decreed. Thereafter, interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of decree till realisation was awarded under Section 34 CPC.
As it would be seen, this was a Civil Suit, where the Division Bench had reduced the post decretal interest to 6% under Section 34 CPC. Obvious- ly, it appears to be a case where the provision of Section 34 CPC was also not applicable. In my view, this case is distinguishable and would not advance the respondent’s case. There are several decisions of this Court, where interest at a rate even higher than 12% p.a. has also been upheld. Reference is invited to decisions of this Court in Vishal Engineer and Builders Vs. D.D.A. 1998(3) RAJ 299 (DEL) and M/s. Tarapore and Co. Vs. D.D.A-1998 (1) Arb. Law Reporter 356. Accordingly, the award in respect of interest is not liable to be interfered with.
Learned counsel for the petitioner makes a prayer that this Court be pleased to grant interest from the date of award till the date of payment. Learned counsel has explained that the prayer before the arbitrator was to grant preference and pendente lite interest. The arbitrator, accordingly, granted pre-suit and pendente lite interest and did not make any award in respect of post award interest. This, the learned counsel submits, is within the jurisdiction of this Court to do so. Considering that the award was made in the year 1993 and the respondents have chosen to file objec- tions, which have been found to be without merit, the petitioners, who have been deprived of their money due under the award would be entitled to the Court giving a direction for award of interest on the principal sum awarded from the date of award till realisation. Accordingly, I award interest @12% on the principal awarded amount date of award till date of realisation.
In view of the discussions above, the objections filed vide I.A.1556/94 are dismissed. Award is made rule of the Court, Decree be drawn in terms of the award with interest a @ 12% p.a. from the date of the award till realisation on the principal awarded amount.