ORDER
A.K. Sikri, J.
1. The petitioner was awarded contract by the Delhi Development Authority regarding construction of 936, Janta Houses, Pocket V (Poorvi) Pitampura, Sub Head Construction of 888 Janta Houses. Disputes arose between the parties and Mr. V.R. Vanish, retired Chief Engineer, CPWD was appointed as Arbitrator by Engineer Member, DDA vide letter dated 6-4-1987. He entered upon the reference, heard both the parties and after adjudication made and published Award dated 7-7-1989. Award was filed by the Arbitrator in this Court. On receiving the Award notice was issued to both the parties. The respondent DDA has filed objections to this Award by means of IA.6226/97. Since there is some controversy as to whether the objections filed by the DDA are within time or not inasmuch as in the written synopsis filed by the petitioner it has been alleged that objections filed by the DDA are barred by time, it may be clarified at the outset that counsel for the petitioner has already conceded, as is clear from the order dated 14-5-1996, that the objections were within time. Therefore, I proceed to deal with the objections on merits.
2. The petitioner has preferred Claim No. 1 for Rs.55,000/- towards amount of running bill lying pending with the DDA and Claim No. 2 for Rs.2 lacs towards Bill to be prepared after closure of contract for work executed. The learned Arbitrator has awarded a sum of Rs.78,410/- against these two claims supporting it with reasons as well as detailed calculations. The objection of the respondent is that the Arbitrator has arbitrarily taken 1977 Delhi Schedule of Rates (DSR) without considering Clause 12 of the Agreement which gives different method for calculating the rates for additions/altered and substituted work. A perusal of the Award shows that the items which are taken into consideration for which payment was not made, are the schedule item in 1977 DRS and these items should have been sanctioned in terms of Clause 12 of the Agreement on the basis of DRS rates plus contractors percentage 90.28% above. It is thus clear that DRS rates are taken as specifically provided in Clause 12 of the Agreement and Arbitrator was fully justified in taking DRS rates. It would be appropriate to reproduce relevant portion of Clause 12(iii) hereunder:
Clause 12(iii)
“If the altered, additional or substituted work includes any work for which no rate is specified in the contract for the work and cannot be derived from the similar class of work in the contract then such work shall be carried out at rates entered in (current C.P.W.D. schedule of rates for Delhi Schedule of Rates 1977 ) with up to date correction slips, minus/plus percentage which the total tendered amount bears to the estimated cost of entire work put to the tender”.
3. This objection is, therefore, without any merit.
4. The next objection is to award of Claim No.3 which for Rs.1.00 lac towards refund of security deposit. During the proceedings petitioner had submitted that part of security deposit has been refunded and the balance left was Rs.49,561/-. The Arbitrator has directed the respondent to pay this balance amount to the petitioner. The only objection is that this claim is against the terms and clauses of the Agreement, without specifying as to how it is so. The objections are vague and lack particulars. When the Arbitrator found that the petitioner was entitled to the refund of security deposit, there was nothing wrong in directing the respondent to release the said security deposit. This objection is also without any force.
5. Objection in respect of Claim No.4 is that the Arbitrator has not given any reason and ignored Clause-10(c) of the Agreement as per which it was incumbent to inform about the increase and that too was payable only if it was more than 10%. Under Claim No.4, the petitioner had claimed Rs.1.00 lac towards statutory increase in wages of labour. The Arbitrator found statutory increase in the minimum wages w.e.f.1-6-1984 due to Government notification. This statutory increases was worked out to Rs.11,943/- by the Arbitrator and it is this amount awarded by the arbitrator in respect of Claim No.4. Clause-10(c) of the Contract specifically entitles the petitioner for such an escalation. Therefore, this objection is also meritless.
6. The DDA has also objected to Award of cost of Rs.11,000/- against Claim No.8 and Award of interest at the rate of 10% from the date of Award till date of payment against Claim No.9 on the ground that there is no provision for payment of cost and interest and, therefore, the Arbitrator acted without jurisdiction. These objections are also without any force. Award of cost of arbitration was within the discretion of the Arbitrator who has held that Rs.11,000/- as cost of arbitration is to be shared by both the parties. The objection of the respondent on this account is clearly frivolous. As far as Claim No.9 is concerned which was for pendentilite interest, the Arbitrator specifically rejected this claim. The Arbitrator has awarded interest only from the date of Award that too at the rate of 10% per annum which was very well within the jurisdiction of the Arbitrator.
7. I.A.6226 of 1997 is accordingly dismissed. The judgment in terms of Award is pronounced and the Award is made a rule of the Court. The petitioner shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of decree till the date of payment. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
8. Suit stands disposed of.