JUDGMENT
Jaspal Singh, J.
(1) The appellant Munshi Lal was engaged as a transport contractor by the Delhi Milk Scheme for purposes of transporting empty milk cans and milk in cans at the rate of 50 paise per kilometer. This was for a period of two years commencing from 16th April, 1969. It was alleged that though the present appellant took up the work on 16th April, 1969 itself, he withdrew his vehicle without notice on 26th September, 1969, upon which the Delhi Milk Scheme had to make alternative arrangement incurring thereby a loss of Rs.40,688.40 paise. Besides that amount the Delhi Milk Scheme also took up the stand that the appellant was liable to pay Rs.2475.00 towards the cost price of fifteen milk cans, which he allegedly failed to return. In short thus a claim of Rs. 43,163.40 paise was made.
(2) Consequent upon the dispute the matter was referred to the sole arbitration of Sh.R.K.Baweja who by his speaking Award dated 11th March, 1974 held the claimant to be entitled to Rs.15,940.00 by way of damages. However an adjustment of Rs.4311.80 was allowed and in short thus an award was made for a sum of Rs.11,628.20 paise.
(3) Aggrieved by the Award Sh.Munshi Lal preferred objections which lead to the framing of the following issues: (1)DIDthe arbitrator misconducted (sic) the proceedings?(2)Is the award liable to be set aside on the grounds alleged in the objection petition? (3)Relief. (4) The learned Additional District Judge by his order dated August 11, 1976 decided both the issues against the objector Munshi Lal and holding that the Award was well reasoned and based on facts, dismissed the objections. Consequently the Award was made rule of the court. Hence this first appeal. (5) The learned counsel for the appellant has pressed this appeal only on one ground. His contention is that the damages have been awarded by the learned Arbitrator on the basis of no evidence on the record. It may be noticed that this very objection was raised before the learned Additional District Judge also and in paragraph 15 of the impugned judgment he has dealt with this question in detail.
(6) Before I proceed to deal with the question raised, it may be mentioned that the learned Arbitrator after having considered the matter at some length did not award damages as claimed. He scaled down the same to the minimum rate on which the contract was given. That there had been a breach of contract is not challenged before me. The fact that alternative arrangement had to be made consequent upon the breach of contract by the present appellant is also not disputed. That the appellant would have to mitigate the loss consequent upon the breach was also not disputed before me. The question relates, as already noticed above, only with regard to the quantum of damages. It is true that the claimant did not place on record all the documents which were in its possession but then it does not mean that the Arbitrator did not have any material or evidence before him. Admittedly the Technical Superintendent of the Delhi Milk Scheme Mr.K.D.P.Sinha had filed his affidavit by way of evidence in support of the claim wherein he not only deposed about the alternative arrangements made by the claimants from time to time with effect from 27th September, 1969 to 15th April, 1971 by appointing different contractors to perform the job earlier undertaken to be performed by Sh.Munshi Lal, but also furnished details with regard to the same. He mentioned therein in clear and unambiguous terms that from 27th September, 1969 to 1st October, 1969 one Sh.P.M.Singh had been engaged to perform the work at the rate of Rs.100.00 per day plus 45 paise per kilometer for the distance travelled by his vehicle and that during that period a total distance of 1084 kilometers had been covered. The damage suffered by the claimants was stated to be Rs.445.80 paise. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that from 4th October 1969 to 5th October, 1969 Rs.441.00 were reimbursed to the Manager Dankaur on casual basis, and further that from 6th October, 1969 to 31st December, 1969 one Abdul Rashid was engaged at the rate of Rs.100.00 per day plus 40 paise per kilometer and that the said Abdul Rashid had covered the distance of 18,084 kilometers. The amount paid to him was Rs.15,933.00 and that had the present appellant plied his vehicle as per the terms of his contract he would have been paid only Rs.9032.00 . From 1st January, 1970 to 30th April, 1970 one Mr.Roop Singh was engaged at Rs.120 per day and the difference claimed was Rs.3120.00 . As regards the period from 1st May, 1970 to 24th July, 1970 one Raj Kumar was engaged as a contractor at the rate of Rs.180.00 per day. It was also in evidence that from 25th July, 1970 to 15th April, 1971 Sh.Karamat Ali and R.K.Aggarwal were given the contract at the rate of 90 paise per kilometer and the distance so covered was 45312 kilometers and that the difference between the amount paid to them and the amount which would have been paid to Sh.Munshi Lal was Rs.18,124.80 paise
(7) As would be borne out from the above there was positive evidence before the learned Arbitrator with regard to the claim at serial No.1 which related to the period from 22nd September, 1969 to 1st October, 1969, with regard to item No. 3 relating to the period from 6th October to 31st December, 1969 and with regard to items No.10, 11 and 16 relating respectively to the periods from 1st July, 1970 to 30th April, 1970, 1st May, 1970 to 24th July, 1970 and 25th July, 1970 to 15th April, 1971.
(8) It was argued that the learned Arbitrator was not justified in placing reliance upon the solitary affidavit of Sh.K.D.P.Sinha, Technical Superintendent and on his subsequent cross-examination. I feel that I sit here not to weigh and assess the evidence. The matter was gone into at length by the Additional District Judge and after analysing the evidence critically and analytically he found no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the objector. I find no reason to take a view contrary to that taken by him. The evidence was discussed by the Arbitrator, some of the claims were rejected and to my mind rightly so. With regard to other claims namely items No.1, 3, 10, 11 and 16 damages were allowed at the minimum rate and to my mind justifiably too. This being the position and the appeal having been confined only to the point referred to above I find no ground to interfere for it is not a case of no evidence.
(9) For the reasons recorded above the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. However before concluding I may add that none appeared for the Delhi Milk Scheme and consequently I did not have the benefit of hearing arguments from that side.