D. K. Jain ( 1 ) THE petitioner/contractor (hereinafter referred to as the Contractor) was awarded work for construction of 224 MIG, 160 LIG flats including internal water supply and sanitary installations. Group B Part II at Trilokpuri, Delhi by the Delhi Development Authority (for short the DDA ). The estimated cost of the work was Rs. 85,35,856. Disputes and differences relating to the non-finalisation of the measurements of various items of work (pertaining to the impugned award), having arisen between the parties, on Contractor s demand. Engineer Member DDA, the persona designate under the Arbitration Clause, vide his memo dated 14th February, 1983 appointed Shri L. R. Pahwa, Sr. Project Engineer (AGV)/ Arbn. , DDA as the sole arbitrator to decide and make his award regarding the claims/disputes of the contractor. Claims other than claim No. 25 were decided by the arbitrator by means of an interim award dated 25th April, 1984 are not in dispute now. Subsequently, the Contractor revised h claim No. 25 regarding measurements and the revised claim, subject matter of the present case, was referred to the arbitrator on 29th June 1984. ( 2 ) IN the claim statement before the arbitrator, the contractor raised claims which were categorised under three beads, namely, (i) amounts due on account of under measurement of exposed items (Rs. 3,17,049), amount due on account of under measurement of painting to steel frames (Rs. 9,920) and (iii) amount due on account of under measurement of hidden items (Rs. 1. 31,038 ). The total claim was, however, restricted to Rs. 4 lakhs. The Contractor also claimed interest. All these claims Were resisted by the DDA in their counter statement of facts. The 1d. arbitrator heard the parties ; awarded certain amounts against the aforesaid two categories of the claims but did not award any amount for the hidden items. ( 3 ) ON a petition under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, by the Contractor, notice was issued to the arbitrator for filing the award. Shri L. R. Pahwa filed his award dated 24th April 1988. ( 4 ) NOTICE of filing of the award was given to the parties. The D. D. A. has filed objections against the award, being I. A. 7365/89, which are resisted by the Contractor. Shri L. R. Pahwa filed his award dated 24th April 1988. ( 4 ) NOTICE of filing of the award was given to the parties. The D. D. A. has filed objections against the award, being I. A. 7365/89, which are resisted by the Contractor. ( 5 ) IN the objections filed by the D,d. A. against the award, the ground of attack is that the Id. arbitrator is guilty of judicial and legal misconduct inasmuch as he has failed to appreciate the terms and conditions of the reference ; adopted irregular procedure and mishandled the proceedings ; misconstrued, misunderstood and misinterpreted the items of the contract ; given wrong interpretation construction to the scope and jurisdiction under the terms of the reference ignored vital documents. It is also stated that there are errors apparent on the the face of the award besides the allegation that the award has been illegally and improperly procured. The award is thus, assailed on all the conceivable grounds which could perhaps induce the court to set it aside un-ler Section 3 of the said Act. ( 6 ) THE objections of the D. DA. having been controverted, the following issues were framed : (1) Whether the award dated 27. 10. 1988 is liable to be set aside for the reasons stated in objections filed by the D. D. A. ? (2) Relief. ( 7 ) COUNSEL for the parties- agreed and stated that the arbitration proceedings be read in evidence and the matter be decided as such. The suit and the I. A. were accordingly set down for final hearing. ( 8 ) I have heard Id. counsel for the parties. ( 9 ) INSUPPORT of the general objections of the D. D. A. on the award of amounts on the exposed items for item No. 7. 4, 9. 2, 13. 5, 47 and 111 and also for under measurement of painting of the steel frames, Shri Rajiv Nayyar 1d. ( 8 ) I have heard Id. counsel for the parties. ( 9 ) INSUPPORT of the general objections of the D. D. A. on the award of amounts on the exposed items for item No. 7. 4, 9. 2, 13. 5, 47 and 111 and also for under measurement of painting of the steel frames, Shri Rajiv Nayyar 1d. counsel for the D. D. A. has raised basically two objections to the award, namely, (i) the arbitrator having recorded in the proceedings held on 3rd October, 1988 that the contractor was satisfied with the measurements of the exposed items, submitted by the D. D. A. , there was no occasion for the arbitrator to award further amounts beyond what was admitted by the D. D. A. and the Contractor and (ii) the arbitrator having rejected the contractor s claim under the head "hidden items" on the ground that there was no satisfactory proof of under measurements of the hidden items, on the same analogy, contractor s claim for those items which could not beemeasured, should have been rejected. He contends that the award is not only perverse but there is an error apparent on its face. Mr. Daljit Singh, Id. counsel for the Contractor, on the other hand, submits that from the procedings held and recorded on 3rd October 1988, it cannot be inferred that all measurements had been taken by the D. D. A. and these were accepted by the contractor to be correct. His submission is that the details of certain extra items viz. , items No. 47 and 111 belies the stand of the D. D. A. that these items formed part of the exposed items and had been included in the D. D. A. s list of measured items. ( 10 ) I have perused the award and have also glanced through the proceedings before the Id. arbitrator. As noticed above, the disputes/claims, subject matter of the amounts awarded, only related to the measurements of various items of work executed by the contractor. I find that a commission, consisting of two Assistant Engineers of the D. D. A. , was appointed by the arbitrator with the consent of the parties to report whether the work was executed by the contractor in accordance with the contract and the measurements given by it the contractor were correct as per drawings/site. I find that a commission, consisting of two Assistant Engineers of the D. D. A. , was appointed by the arbitrator with the consent of the parties to report whether the work was executed by the contractor in accordance with the contract and the measurements given by it the contractor were correct as per drawings/site. It is not disputed by the D. D. A. that in its report, the commission did point out that various exposed items had not been measured by the D. D. A. meaning thereby, that the measurements recorded in the measurement books, which were being relied upon by the D. D. A. were not complete. The Id. arbitrator while commencing adversely on the conduct of the D. D. A. in not verifying adversely on the conduct of the D. D. A. in not verifying the details furnished by the contractor, has observed that on 3rd October, 1988, the D. D. A. submitted final measurements acceptable to them in respect of 23 exposed items but did not offer any comments regarding 11 other items. It is, that the said 11 items were executed and it is, therefore, evident that petitioner s acceptance of D. D. A. s measurements, being heavily relied upon by the D. D. A. , could only be with respect to those items for which final measurements were submitted by the D. D. A. on 3rd October, 1988 and for the items, which as observed by the Id. arbitrator, were not commented upon by the D. D. A. In my view it is difficult to read in the proceedings of 3rd October, 1988 a concession on the part of the contractor that it was satisfied with all the measurements submitted by the D. D. A. in respect of all its claims for the exposed items. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the contention of the Id. counsel for the D. D. A. and hereby reject the same. ( 11 ) AS regards the second limb of Shri Nayar s argument that contractor s claims have been wrongly allowed placing the onus of proving the correctness of the measurements on the D. D. A. , I am of the view that the objection is utterly misconceived. A bare perusal of the claims awarded against items No. 74, 9. 2, 13. A bare perusal of the claims awarded against items No. 74, 9. 2, 13. 5, 47 and 111 would reveal that the details of measurements furnished by the contractor were neither verified nor refuted by the D. D. A. , which, as the Id. arbitrator has observed could easily be verified. This is not disputed by the Id. counsel for the D. D. A. Thus, it is not a case where the contractor had failed to furnish satisfactory proof of under-measurements which was the case in respect of the hidden items. On the contrary, the details/evidence furnished by the contractor in support of his stand of under-measurements was never sought to be refuted by the D. D. A. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the contention of the Id. counsel and I have no hesitation in rejecting the same. ( 12 ) REGARDING award of Rs. 8,846. 90 ps. for under-measurement of painting of steel frames, the Id. arbitrator, while awarding the said amount, has relied on the report of the said commission, which report, has gone unrebutted. No fault can, therefore, be found in the award of this amount as well. ( 13 ) FURTHERMORE, the findings of fact arrived at by the Id. arbitrator, being assailed by the D. D. A. , are on the merits of the case, beyond the jurisdiction of this court to interfere. An arbitrator is a sole Judge on facts and law and his findings on merits cannot be reviewed. This court is not sitting in appeal to reassess and re-examine the material which was before the arbitrator. ( 14 ) THE Id. arbitrator has given sufficient reasons and has clearly indicated the basis on which he has arrived at the sums awarded against each of the items. I am satisfied that the arbitrator did apply his mind in the matter and concluded on the basis of the evidence on record. It cannot, therefore, be said that in the present case findings of fact of the Id. arbitrator on merits are perverse or that there is an error apparent on the fact of the award. As such, the award is not liable to be set aside. Issue No. 1 decided in the negative. I, accordingly, dismiss the objections against the award, I A. 7365/89 stands disposed of. arbitrator on merits are perverse or that there is an error apparent on the fact of the award. As such, the award is not liable to be set aside. Issue No. 1 decided in the negative. I, accordingly, dismiss the objections against the award, I A. 7365/89 stands disposed of. ( 15 ) S. No. 2802/88 The objections against the award having been dismissed, the award is made rule of the court. A decree in terms thereof is passed. The contractor will also be entitled to future interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the award amount, from the date of decree till payment. If, however, the award amount is paid to the contractor with two months from today, no future interest shall be payable. Decree-sheet be drawn up accordingly. ( 16 ) PARTIES are left to bear their own costs.