C. M. Nayar,j. (Oral) ( 1 ) THIS petition will dispose of the objections filed by the respondents-DDA in respect of the Award dated June 28, 1993. ( 2 ) THE petitioner-claimant was granted the contract for construction 1200 MIG DU s (New Pattern) at Vikaspuri/bodella Pkt. DG II (i) 304 MIG Gr. II and IV (ii) 336 MIG Gr. IV SH: Building work including Earth work, B risk work, C. C. work, Steel work, RCC work finishing sanitary installation and water supply (Balance work ). vide Agreement No. 33/ee/hdxiii/86-87. Disputes arose between the claimant and the Respondent Authority which were referred to arbitration by Engineer Member, Delhi Development Authority vide his No. EM2 (116)90/arbn/517-21 dated 11. 1. 91. ( 3 ) THE following claims were referred to the Arbitrator for adjudication: "claim No. 1 Claim for a sum of Rs. 20,654. 00 on account of recovery of rebate which respondents deducted for payment of monthly bills required for availing of rebate but which condition was not adhered to by respondents. Claim No. 2: Claim for Rs. 20,654. 00 on account of unlawful recovery of rebate by the Department against payment of final bill without fulfilling the contractual obligation. Claim No. 3:claim for Rs. 5,614. 00 on account of unlawful recovery of rebate by the Department against sanction of extra/si, items, without fulfilling the contractual obligations. Claim No. 4: Claim for Rs. 10,327. 00 on account of refund of security deposit recovered from the R. A. bills without fulfilling the contractual obligations unlawfully. Claim No. 5: Claim for Rs. 5,974. 00 on account of unlawful penal rate recovery made by the department in respect of materials like S. C. I. pipes etc. Claim No. 6: Claim for Rs. 14,414. 00 on account of amount unlawful withheld by the department from the payment made against 19th R. A. bills. Claim No. 7: Claim for Rs. 1,00,000. 00 on account of release of security deposit lying in the form of Bank guarantee with the respondent. Claim No. 8:claim for Rs. 5,000. 00 on account of under payment for the item of A. C. sheet for expansion joints paid as 100mm wide instead of 150mm wide. Cim No. 9 Claim for Rs. 50,000. 00 on account of balance payment/reimbursement under clause 10 (c) of the Agreement. Claim No. 10 Claim for Rs. 1,50,000. Claim No. 8:claim for Rs. 5,000. 00 on account of under payment for the item of A. C. sheet for expansion joints paid as 100mm wide instead of 150mm wide. Cim No. 9 Claim for Rs. 50,000. 00 on account of balance payment/reimbursement under clause 10 (c) of the Agreement. Claim No. 10 Claim for Rs. 1,50,000. 00 on account of under payment in respect of certain extra/substituted items due to wrong derivation of rates by the department, under clause 12 of the agreement. Claim No. 11: Claim for Rs. 30,000. 00 on account of work of scaffolding actually done by the claimants for plastering on old work not paid by the department. Claim No. 12:claim for Rs. 30,000. 00 on account of under payment due to wrong measurement done by the department for the work of grinding/finishing of terrace floor, shirting etc. Claim No. 13: Claim for Rs. 1,00,000. 00 on account of expenditure incurred by them on watch and ward and other establishment for the period of handing over and maintenance of flats. Claim No. 14: Claim for Rs. 1,20,000. 00 on account of losses/damages due to prolongation of the contract period. Claim No. 15 Claim for 24% presuit and pendente lite interest. Claim No. 16: Claim for Rs. 11,000. 00 on account of cost of arbitration proceedings. " ( 4 ) CLAIM No. 1 was rejected. The Arbitrator allowed claim No. 2 by concluding that respondents were not entitled to avail of the rebate since they had not paid claimants the final bill within six months of completion of work. The finding is based on interpretation of agreement and no fault can be found with the same. Similarly, claims 3 and 4 were granted in favour of the claimant and the amounts of Rs. 4,314. 00 Rs. 10,327. 00 were awarded in favour of the claimant. The learned Arbitrator also allowed claim No. 5 to the extent of Rs. 5,974. 00 after returning a finding that he had gone through the records and found the claim to be justified. Claim No. 6 was examined on the basis of appreciation of evidence and documents on record as Arbitrator recorded the following findings: "the claimants, however, submitted during hearings that in the final bill since the measurements had been shown for 624 meter boxes by Respondents themselves and, therefore,they were entitled to full payments. Claim No. 6 was examined on the basis of appreciation of evidence and documents on record as Arbitrator recorded the following findings: "the claimants, however, submitted during hearings that in the final bill since the measurements had been shown for 624 meter boxes by Respondents themselves and, therefore,they were entitled to full payments. The claimants, however, admitted that a sum of Rs. 3,228. 91 as per Exhibit R-51 was admitted but they were entitled to a balance amount of Rs. 11,185. 09. After hearing both parties and going through the records submitted by parties,i have come to conclusion that claimants are entitled to payment of Rs. 11,185. 09 and accordingly allow the claim to the extent of Rs. 11,185. 00 only. " ( 5 ) CLAIM No. 8 was allowed to the extent of Rs. 2,335. 00 on appreciation of evidence and perusal of records by the learned Arbitrator. Therefore, no interference is called for. Claim No. 9 was made on the basis of clause 10c of the Agreement. The learned Arbitrator examined the statement of claims and held this claim for the sum of Rs. 36,772. 00 by recording the following findings: "the respondents denied the claim. They confessed that there was Notification issued by Delhi Administration increasing the labour rates w. e. f. 1. 5. 87 but according to them whatever was to be paid to claimants in terms of agreement had been paid. According to respondents, claimants had undertaken that they (claimants) would not claim for left out items for which rates cannot be derived. They, however,did not specifically point out the deficiency or mistake in the analysis and reasoning given by claimants to reject their claim on account of clause 10 (c) of agreement for the items given in their statement of claims. In view of above, I allow the claim of Rs. 36,772. 00 to claimants on account of claim No. 9. " ( 6 ) CLAIM Nos. 10,11 and 12 have been disallowed by the learned Arbitrator and no challenge has been made in respect of the same. ( 7 ) CLAIM No. 13 was dealt with in the following manner: "i have gone through the records produced by both the parties. It is true that respondents gave completion certificate for the work with date of completion as 15. 4. ( 7 ) CLAIM No. 13 was dealt with in the following manner: "i have gone through the records produced by both the parties. It is true that respondents gave completion certificate for the work with date of completion as 15. 4. 88 but they gave this certificate as conditional, clearly pointing out that they were not ready to take over the work even though the work was complete. Accordingly, I feel that claimants are to be compensated for the delay in taking over of work by respondents. There was a delay of about 18 months in taking over the work by respondents. I, therefore, allow the claimants a claim of Rs. 3000. 00 per month for 18 months making a total of Rs. 54,000. 00 against this claim. "( 8 ) SIMILARLY, claim No. 14 for a sum of Rs. 1,20,000. 00 which related to losses/damages due to prolongation of contract period. The arbitrator held as follows: "considering that there has been delay in completion of work for no fault on the part of claimants, they should be compensated for the expenditure they had to incur to keep Tandp, Establishment etc. for this prolonged period of completion. However, I feel that Rs. 15,000. 00 asked by them is rather too high considering that original amount of tender is around Rs. 47 lakhs. I consider that an amount of Rs. 6000. 00 p. m. for 8 months should be enough and accordingly, I allow claim partially to the extent of Rs. 48,000. 00 against this claim. " ( 9 ) IN respect of claim No. 15 interest was awarded from the date when the matter was referred to arbitration to the date of payment of award or the date of decree whichever is earlier. The arbitrator was perfectly within his right to award interest on this basis as this is a settled proposition in this regard. The claimants were also awarded costs to the extent of Rs. 5,000. 00. ( 10 ) THE perusal of the Award in favour of the claimant will show that the learned Arbitrator has assigned cogent grounds and sufficient reasoning. Therefore, it will not call for interference in exercise of powers vested in this Court in the present proceedings as no error of law has been pointed out nor any act of misconduct has been cited. Therefore, it will not call for interference in exercise of powers vested in this Court in the present proceedings as no error of law has been pointed out nor any act of misconduct has been cited. ( 11 ) THE learned Arbitrator has given reasons to arrive at conclusions which are based on appreciation of evidence as well as the documents which have been placed on record. The law is well settled that it will not be open for this Court to reappraise the same and arrive at conclusions contrary to the conclusions which have been rendered by the learned Arbitrator. The learned counsel for respondents-Authority has not been able to point out any error of law or an act of misconduct on behalf of the arbitrator and the objections filed by the respondents Authority are, therefore, misconceived and without any basis and are dismissed accordingly. ( 12 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the Award dated 28th June, 1993 is made Rule of the Court and decree in terms thereof is passed. The petitioner-claimant shall also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of decree till realisation. There will be no order as to costs.