B. N. Kirpal ( 1 ) THE quantum of amount awarded by the arbitrator seems to have compelled D. D. A. to file objections to the well reasoned and detailed award of the arbitrator, appointed by the D. D. A. itself, in the present case. ( 2 ) THE claimant was entrusted with the work of constructing, what is now as, the Indira Gandhi Indoor Stadium. The work was of great importance and was required to be completed, according to the original terms of the contract, by 31st December, 1981 so that it could be ready well in time for the Asian Games to be. ( 3 ) AS the work was not completed within time, the respondent extended the period till 16th November, 1982. It is not in dispute that the claimant completed the work within the extended time. ( 4 ) CERTAIN dispute arose between the parties and in terms of the arbitration clause, the same were referred by the Engineer member of the Delhi Development Authority vide his letter dated 9th August, 1984 to the sole arbitration of Shri. C. Rama Rao. ( 5 ) BEFORE the arbitrator, both the claimant and the respondent filed their claims and counter-claims. The arbitrator went into the documentary and other evidence produced before him and made and published his award dated 30th September, 1985. ( 6 ) THE sole arbitrator then filed the award and the proceedings in Court. Notice of filing of the award was issued to the parties. On behalf of D. D. A. objections were filed which were replied to by the petitioner. On 22nd January, 1986 the following two issues were framed : 1. Whether the award is liable to be set aside on the objections contained in I. A. 448/86 ? OPO. 2. Relief. Parties were required to file additional evidence by way of affidavits, if they so desired. It was however, agreed that the record of the arbitration proceedings should be read as evidence in this case. ( 7 ) MR. Jaggi, on behalf of the respondent, has very forcefully and ably, contended that the arbitrator fell in error while dealing with the various claims of the claimant and the counter claims of the respondent. The learned counsel has sought to take me through the various claims which, according to him, have been wrongly adjudicated upon by the arbitrator. Jaggi, on behalf of the respondent, has very forcefully and ably, contended that the arbitrator fell in error while dealing with the various claims of the claimant and the counter claims of the respondent. The learned counsel has sought to take me through the various claims which, according to him, have been wrongly adjudicated upon by the arbitrator. 1 shall deal with them presently. ( 8 ) BEFORE considering the contentions of the learned counsel for the respondent, it is necessary to bear in mind that the jurisdiction of this Court, while dealing with objections under section 30 of the Arbitration Act, is not jurisdiction of an appellate court. The jurisdiction is very limited. It is now well settled that an award of a sole arbitrator, even if it is a reasoned award, is final and binding on the parties both on facts and in law. It will be important to bear in mind the observations of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of D. D. A. v. Uppal Engineering Construction,1 where it was observed that "if the arbitrator makes a speaking award and gives reasons, the Court cannot setaside the award merely because the Court would have come to a different conclusion. The more dissent of a Court from the arbitrator s conclusion is not enough to set aside the award unless it can be shown by anything appear in from the face of the award that the arbitrator has tied himself down to some special legal proposition which is unsound". In Delhi Development Authority v. M/s Alkaram. New Delhi2 it was similarly observed by the Division Bench of this Court that in dealing with objections under Section 30 the Court is not permitted to reappraise the evidence and sit as a Court of appeal over the arbitrator s award. In the present case. what the learned counsel for the respondent wants me to do is precisely what Division Bench of this Court has held cannot be done. ( 9 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent first impugned the decision of the sole arbitrator with regard to claim No. 2 whereby the claimant desired that a sum of Rs. 16,85,147. 00 should be awarded to it as representing 15% extra amount over the quoted rates in respect of the additional quantities of work done by it beyond 25% deviation limit. 16,85,147. 00 should be awarded to it as representing 15% extra amount over the quoted rates in respect of the additional quantities of work done by it beyond 25% deviation limit. It is not in dispute that if there was a deviation beyond 25% in respect of extra items of work which were carried out by the claimant then the claimant was entitled to paid in respect thereof. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondent, however, is that as per clauses 18 (VI) and 12 A of the conditions of contract what could be claimed by the claimant is the prevailing market rate and the present case the prevailing makret rate which could have been awarded was less than 15% which had been in fact awarded by the sole-arbitrator. In order to substantiate this, the learned counsel has taken me through a later part of the award of the sole arbitrator where, dealing with claim No. 18, the sole arbitrator has given the percentage of increased as per the cost index which has been maintained. It is submitted by Shri Jaggi that as per this table the maximum increase which could have been awarded was only 6. 70 per cent and not 15%. ( 10 ) THE arbitrator, while considering this claim, has referred to and kept in mind the relevant terms of the agreement. Hehas referred to clause 12 (VI) and 12 A and has noted its contents. The sole arbitrator has then referred to the claimant s letter dated 25th February, 1981 in which it was categorically stated that the increase to which they were entitled to was more than 25% but the claim was being limited by them to 15%. The arbitrator has allowed 15%. It is not possible for me to come to the conclusion that this increase of 15% arrived at by the arbitration cannot be regarded at being the market prices of the building materials and labour etc. which were being demanded by the claimant. It is to be borne in mind that the contention of the claimant was that escalation in prices were to the extent of 15% but was beingd dmanded was 15%. Even the perusal of the statement of the cost index referred to by the sole arbitrator while dealing with claim 18 cannot show that the decision of the arbitrator was not correct. Even the perusal of the statement of the cost index referred to by the sole arbitrator while dealing with claim 18 cannot show that the decision of the arbitrator was not correct. In any case, the decision of the arbitrator is on a question of fact and I see no reason as to way the same should be set aside. ( 11 ) MR. Jaggi then submitted that the conclusion of the arbitrator while dealing with claimant s claim No. 3 (a) was incorrect. Admittedly, according to the terms of the contract the claimant was required to use slip-form shuttering upto the full height of 42 metres. This shuttering was to be used to complete 8 pylons within the time schedule. It is further an admitted fact that after the execution of the work had reached a level of i8. 6 metres, the respondent decided that for technical reasons instead of using the slip-form shuttering, the conventional shuttering should be used. Departure, made from the original contract and the claimant was required to undertake the conventional type of shuttering. The claims of the claimant was that it had already prepared shuttering to the extent of 42 metres and according to the frame work of time limit, the contract was required to prepare for a minimum of two sets of such shuttering as per agreement. The arbitrator came to the conclusion that no fault could be found with the claimant in the present case. It is the respondent who, on their own, directed the claimant not to undertake the work of using the special type of shuttering. If, therefore, the claimant suffered a loss because it had incurred expenses in obtaining the special type of shuttering which could not otherwise be used, the arbitrator rightly, to my mind, come to the conclusion that it is the respondent who should compensate for the loss suffered by the claimant. Though the claim put forth was for Rs. 4,43,673. 00 what it was in fact awarded was Rs. 2,76,785. 00. ( 12 ) MR. Jaggi contended thet in dealing with this claim the sole arbitrator ignored the provisions of clause 12. Clause 12 merely gives the powe to the respondent to make alterations in the work to be carried out. Though the claim put forth was for Rs. 4,43,673. 00 what it was in fact awarded was Rs. 2,76,785. 00. ( 12 ) MR. Jaggi contended thet in dealing with this claim the sole arbitrator ignored the provisions of clause 12. Clause 12 merely gives the powe to the respondent to make alterations in the work to be carried out. It does not State as to what would happen if as a result of any alterations which are directed to be carried out, what would happen to the loss which may be suffered by a contractor in respect of expenses which he may have already incurred for carrying out the contract in accordance with the terms of the contract. In the present case the contractor has suffered a loss because he had prepared the special type of shuttering for executing the work in accordance which the terms of the contract. In fact work had commenced into this manner and it is only when the level of 18. 6 metres was reached that it was decided to abandon the work in this manner. The decision of the arbitrator does not, to my mind, suffer from any error apparent on the fact of the award. ( 13 ) THE decision of the arbitrator with regard to claim No. 3 (b) was also challenged. The claimant has claimed Rs. 2,07,296. 00 for additional cost of labour involved in making conventional shuttering at dizzy heights in pylons above 18. 6 metre level and to 42 metres level. ( 14 ) THE contention of Shri Jaggi is that according to the terms of the contract it was specifically provided that no claim would be made for work involved at dizzy heights or for any height. This submission of Mr. Jaggi is correct, but this clause is with respect to the work which was required to be done in terms of the contract. If the work had been completed in terms of the contract then, notwithstanding the fact that shuttering in slip-form had to be provided upto the height of 42 metres, no claim could have been made by the claimant on that score. If the work had been completed in terms of the contract then, notwithstanding the fact that shuttering in slip-form had to be provided upto the height of 42 metres, no claim could have been made by the claimant on that score. What has happened here in fact is that when the slip form of shuttering was stopped and the claimant was directed to effect conventional type of shuttering, extra expenditure towards labour cost had to be incurred for doing this work at dizzy heights. This extra work was not covered by the terms of the contract. If it was known to the contractor, at the time of submission of his tender, that conventional type of shuttering would have to be undertaken at a height upto 42 metres then the contractor would have taken higher labour cost into consideration while submitting his tender. This is precisely a factor which has been taken into account by the arbitrator while upholding the claim of the claimant. I do not see any infirmity in either the reasoning or the conclusion of the arbitrator in this behalf. ( 15 ) THOUGH in the objections filed there is a challenge to the claim of Rs. 26,673. 00 as additional payment for making grooves in cement mortar which has been awarded to the claimant, Mr. Jaggi very fairly contended that it is not possible for him to successfully impugn the reasoning of the arbitrator. No further time need, therefore, be spent in this behalf. ( 16 ) MR. Jaggi, however, submitted that the dicision of the sole arbitrator with regard to the claim of Rs. 8,06,919. 00 towards rehandling and re stacking of precast units due to restricted space was unjustified. ( 17 ) ACCORDING to the claimants, they were required to complete the entire precast and prestressed units within 8 months. There were severe restrictions in the yard for casting, curing and stacking of the units etc. and due to these multiple handling operations they had to incur additional expenditure of Rs. 8,06,919. 00 for which they should be reimbursed. The arbitrator upheld this claim by coming to the conclusion that though the claimants had made it clear that they required a space of 15000 sq. metres, what was actually given to them was only 10850 sq. metres space in 5 different locations scattered in the project area, separated by half a kilometre. 00 for which they should be reimbursed. The arbitrator upheld this claim by coming to the conclusion that though the claimants had made it clear that they required a space of 15000 sq. metres, what was actually given to them was only 10850 sq. metres space in 5 different locations scattered in the project area, separated by half a kilometre. ( 18 ) IT was submitted by Mr. Jaggi that according to para 1. 10 of the specifications and general conditions of the agreement, the claimant had to programme and coordinate his work in consultation which other agencies and, therefore, no claim can be entertained on account of any lack of coordination. It was submitted that other agencies were working in the same area and, therefore, it was the responsibility of the claimant to see that there was coordination between the claimant and differentagencies working in that area. ( 19 ) IN the present case, as is evident from the letter dated 15th October, 1980 written by the claimant and the reply dated 16th October, 1980 of the respondent, it was the term of the contract that the claimant would be given 15000 sq. metres of working space. In the contract it was provided that the site for this purpose had been seen and would be made available to the claimant free of cost. Actually 15000 sq. metres of space was not made available to the claimant. What was made avilable to the claimant was only 10850 sq. metres of space. This space was also not at any one place. It was scattered over 5 different locations. In this view of the matter there can be no question of the provisions of para 1. 10 of the specifications applying. If 15000 sq. metres of consolidated space had been made available to the claimant, then the claimant, if it had not coordinated its work with any other agency, may not have been able to claim the extra amount on account of handling charges. In this present case when there was admittedly a default on the part of the defendant, the claimants were entitled to the claim as upheld by the arbitrator. ( 20 ) THE next item which has been challenged by Mr. Jaggi is an award of Rs. 2,79,065. In this present case when there was admittedly a default on the part of the defendant, the claimants were entitled to the claim as upheld by the arbitrator. ( 20 ) THE next item which has been challenged by Mr. Jaggi is an award of Rs. 2,79,065. 00 in favour of the claimant due to longer leads of carriage of materials, caused by extensive digging operations by other agencies on the site of work. The claimant was for Rs. 3,22,075. 00. The sole arbitrator referred to the provisions of para 1. 10 which was relied upon before him and on which Mr. Jaggi has placed strong reliance before me also. The sole-arbitrator came to the conclusion that the claimant had in fact incurred an expense of Rs. 3,22,075. 00 on account of long haulages due to large scale digging of trenches for pipes etc. The arbitrator interpreted para 1. 10 to mean that if extra expense is to be incurred then it would not mean that any one agency should have to incur additional expense for doing this work. This is a possible conclusion which could have been arrived at by the arbitrator. Not being a Court of appear it will not be within my jurisdiction, even if I was inclined to differ with the interpretation of para 1. 10 to come to a different conclusion. The sole-arbitrator had gives his reasons for upholding the claim of the claimant to the extent of Rs. 2,79, 065. 00. This conclusion of fact, after referring to the relevant evidence on record, cannot be set-aside. ( 21 ) THE challenge of the respondent to the award under claim 11 has not been seriously made and has in fact been conceded and, therefore, the award of arbitrator is upheld. ( 22 ) THE claimants had also claimed a sum of Rs. 92,47,483. 00 towards escalation in the cost of materials and labour during the extended period of contract. The sole-arbitrator, after taking into consideration the cost index which had increased, upheld the claim to the extent of Rs. 39,26,787. 00. ( 23 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has contended that according to claused 10-C the claimant was not entitled to the same. There is no merit in this submission. The sole-arbitrator, after taking into consideration the cost index which had increased, upheld the claim to the extent of Rs. 39,26,787. 00. ( 23 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has contended that according to claused 10-C the claimant was not entitled to the same. There is no merit in this submission. As rightly observed by the arbitrator clause 10-C of the agreement provides for payment on account of escalation of prices as a result of Government Notification and further this applies during the original period of contract. In the present case, the claim on account of escalation of prices is not due to any Government Notification. What, however, is more important is that the claim in the present case on account of escalation in prices is for the extended period, of contract. The period of contract was extended without any reservation or conditions. The claimant may not have been entitled to any escalation in prices during the original contract period but once the contract had been extended the claimant was entitled to claim escalation in prices. The decision of the arbitrator is on the merits of the case, after taking into consideration the evidence on record, and there is no justification for interfering with the said conclusion while dealing with the objections under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act. ( 24 ) THE arbitrator has also awarded a sum of Rs. 63,61,314. 00 under claim No. 14. This claim of the claimant was in respect of final bill for Rs. 73,99,196. 00 as per the items of work required to be done, including extra items of work. It is not in dispute that final payment of this bill has not been made. There were as many as 68 and 104 extra items involved in this contract. Though running payments had been made but the claimant was entitled to raise a final bill after the contract had been completed. Mr. Jaggi has not been able to satisfy me that there is any infirmity in the decision of the arbitrator who has upheld the claim to extent of Rs. 83. 61,314. 00. In arriving at this figure, the arbitrator has taken into consideration the cost of material supplied, advance made and running payments made. ( 25 ) THE claimants had also raised a claim of Rs. 2,41,536. 00, towards idle labour and equipment caused by suspension ofpre-casting work by the respondent. 83. 61,314. 00. In arriving at this figure, the arbitrator has taken into consideration the cost of material supplied, advance made and running payments made. ( 25 ) THE claimants had also raised a claim of Rs. 2,41,536. 00, towards idle labour and equipment caused by suspension ofpre-casting work by the respondent. It has been noted the respondent by the sole-arbitrator that this delay had been caused by in the procurement of issue of imported cement from July, 1981 to November, 1981 and that indirectly the respondent had also admitted a delay of about 3 months. This being so, the sole-arbitrator rightly awarded compensation to the claimants in respect of labour which was lying idle and which must have been paid by the claimants. ( 26 ) THE learned counsel for the D. D. A. then submitted that the counter claim of the respondent for a sum of Rs. 21,56, 441. 00 for recovery of running payments which had been made for additional lifts for centering and shuttering work done over 3. 5 M. floor heights and R. C. C. work done above 23. 6 M level should have been allowed. This counter claim has been dealt with at length by the sole-arbitrator. He has specifically referred to the deposition of the Architect and the Designer before him made on 18th September, 1985, wherein they have corroborates that para 3. 15 of the Specifications and conditions in the Agreement, on which reliance was sought to the placed, would not apply in the present case. The sole-arbitrator took into consideration the complexity of the structure and its tenchnical requirements and came to the conclusion that for this work the claimant had been rightly paid by the respondent. The counter claim was accordingly disallowed. In my opinion, the decision of the arbitrator is amply supported by the evidence on record and does not call for any interference, ( 27 ) LASTLY, the attack was to the interest which has been awarded by the arbitrator. M. Sanghi states that on the advance given by the respondent to the claimant was required to pay 18% interest. In my view, therefore, the award of 18% interest on the amount held to be due to the claimant cannot be regarded as either illegal or exhorbitant. The respondents have been given 46 days within which they could have made payment in terms of the award. In my view, therefore, the award of 18% interest on the amount held to be due to the claimant cannot be regarded as either illegal or exhorbitant. The respondents have been given 46 days within which they could have made payment in terms of the award. If the payment had been made then, according to the terms of the award, no interest would have been so payable by the respondents on the amount of Rs. 54,82, 517. 00. The respondents choose to file objections to the award and thereby ran the risk of having to pay interest which has been awarded by the arbitrator. In my opinion, the award of the arbitrator calls for no interference at all. It is a very well reasoned and thought out award dealing with all the aspects of the case. ( 28 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the award is made the rule of the Court and a decree in terms thereof a passed. The plaintiff will be entitled to interest pendence lite and further interest at the rate of 15% till the date of payment of the decretal amount. The plaintiff will also be entitled to costs.