C. M. Nayar, J. ( 1 ) THIS judgment will dispose of objections filed by the respondent under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act against the Award dated 3rd March, 1994. ( 2 ) THE disputes arose between the parties regarding the work of development of land of Papankala (Dwarka) project in South West Delhi, Phase-I, S. H.-C/o 24. 38m, 18m and 13. 8m R/w Sectoral roads in Sector-6 under C. A. No. 17/ee/wd-8/90-91. The arbitrator was appointed by the Chief Engineer (WZ), DDA, vide his memo No. F-320/ee (P) III/se (P) II/93/1707 dated 19. 5. 1993. He entered upon the reference on 23rd November, 1993 and considered the claims of the petitioner-claimant as well as the counter claims of the respondent. The hearings were held on 23rd November, 1993, 20th December, 1993 and 21st December, 1993 respectively as will be indicated from reading of the Award. The following claims and counter claims were referred for adjudication:- "claim-1: Rs. 75,000. 00 as the amount paid less in the reimbursement done under Clause 10-CC of the agreement. CLAIM-2 : Rs. 1,08,679. 60 @ Rs. 115. 00 per day recovered in excess for the road roller issued by department. CLAIM-3 : The respondent wrongly knowingly carried out the illegal and wrongful deductions of Rs. 19,016. 73 which are the matter of claim. CLAIM-5 : Illegal and wrongful withholding of Rs. 45,000. 00 was carried out for alleged non-reply of Q. C. paragraphs by the department. CLAIM-4 : Another wrongful deduction was carried out with respect to alleged non-mixing of solvent in bitumen. This amount of Rs. 38,803. 79 is a matter of claim. CLAIM-6 : A sum of Rs. 5,00,000. 00 are claimed as damages due to the delayed completion of the work. CLAIM-7 : Interest @ 24% per annum. Interest of all type i. e. presuit, pendentelite and future interest on all aforesaid claims. CLAIM-8 : Interest @ 24% per annum on account of delayed release of final bill including 10 (CC) and security deposit from due date till realisation. COUNTER CLAIM-1: Rs. 3,653. 00 on account of recoveries in respect of reduction items as well as extra item (minus ). " ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent DDA has disputed the finding in respect of the amounts as awarded for Claim Nos. 1,3, 5 and 6 as well as rejection of the Counter Claim no. COUNTER CLAIM-1: Rs. 3,653. 00 on account of recoveries in respect of reduction items as well as extra item (minus ). " ( 3 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent DDA has disputed the finding in respect of the amounts as awarded for Claim Nos. 1,3, 5 and 6 as well as rejection of the Counter Claim no. 1. The learned arbitrator awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000. 00 to the claimant in respect of Claim No. 1. The reason for this Award has been stated as follows:- "cost of work done is to be arrived at with reference to bills "prepared" during the period for which the amount of escalation is to be worked out. The dates of entering bills in the measurement book by the Assistant Engineer are to be the guiding factor for reckoning bills prepared during the relevant period. No justification was made available by the respondent for not following these guidelines. " ( 4 ) THE main objection of the respondent authority is that the arbitrator has not complied with the provisions as contained in paragraph 33. 8. 4 of C. P. W. D. Manual (Page 119) which reads as follows:- "the first statement of escalation shall be prepared at the end of three month excluding the month in which the work was awarded and the work done from date of start to the end of this period shall be taken into account. For subsequent statements, cost of work done during every quarter shall be taken into account. At the completion of work, the work done during the last quarter or fraction thereof shall be taken into account. For the purpose of reckoning the work done during any period, the bills prepared during the period shall be considered. The dates of preparation of bills as entered in the Measurement Book by the Assistant Engineer shall be the guiding factor to decide the bills relevant to any period. The date of completion as finally recorded by the competent authority in the M. B. shall be the criterion. " ( 5 ) THE basis as well as the calculations relating to these claims are referred to in Annexure-A to the statement of claims as filed before the arbitrator by the petitioner claimant. The date of completion as finally recorded by the competent authority in the M. B. shall be the criterion. " ( 5 ) THE basis as well as the calculations relating to these claims are referred to in Annexure-A to the statement of claims as filed before the arbitrator by the petitioner claimant. The admitted facts, it is argued, are that the work was awarded to the petitioner on 16th February 1991 vide letter No. F81 (103)/wd-8/a/90-91/4034 and the date of start of work was 26th February, 1991 and as per the agreement the contractual period being 7 months the stipulated date for completion of the work was 25th September, 1991. The petitioner claimant did not submit the escalation details for the first quarter in terms of the above provision i. e. for the months of March 1991, April 1991, and May 1991, and instead gave the figures for the quarters June 1991, July 1991, and August 1991. The reading of Annexure-A containing details of Claim No. 1 clearly indicates full particulars of the claim under this head. The objection that the petitioner should have given the reimbursement claim for the earlier quarter as well is misconceived as the petitioner may not have considered it necessary to submit the claim for the first quarter after the commencement of the work. In this case it has been brought to my notice by learned counsel for the petitioner that the work only commenced after May 1991. Therefore, the claim as submitted for the quarter commencing June 1991 to August 1991 cannot be faulted on that ground. The learned arbitrator has examined the calculations as submitted by the petitioner claimant in detail and awarded the amounts on that basis after appreciation of evidence on record. There is no ground which is sustainable in law to re-appraise the same. The Award under this head is, accordingly, upheld. ( 6 ) WITH regard to claims 3 and 5 the learned arbitrator has merely awarded a sum of Rs. 18,233. 00 by assigning cogent reasons and it is well settled that it will not be open for this Court to reconsider the findings of the arbitrator which are justified by adequate reasons. There is, therefore, no error of law which requires to be corrected in respect of this award as well. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent has challenged the Award of Rs. There is, therefore, no error of law which requires to be corrected in respect of this award as well. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent has challenged the Award of Rs. 15,000. 00 which has been adjudicated as nominal damages in respect of claim no. 6. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 5 lacs as damages due to delayed completion of the work which was subsequently reduced to Rs. 3,24,800. 00 during the proceedings. Paragraphs 10. 2. 2 and 10. 2. 3 as contained in the Award read as under:- "10. 2. 2. It is mainly towards wages of an engineer, two munshies, two supervisors, 3 chowkidars for six months of delay in completion of work, expenditure on petrol, other overheads for the same period and 1 month of 4 idle road rollers. 10. 2. 3. The delay in completion of work was not only on account of non-supply of bitumen timely by the respondent and in provision of clear site by removing trees standing on it but also due to suspension of work by the respondent in Pocket 6 for about 4-1/2 months upto 11. 2. 92. For the breach of contract in suspending the work by the respondent he is liable to pay damages to the claimant. " ( 8 ) THE arbitrator has said in paragraph 10. 2. 5 that "since the claimant did not produce any evidence to justify his claim to the extent made, on pure guess work, I award nominal damages. " The amount awarded under this head was only Rs. 15,000. 00. Though the arbitrator has stated that he has awarded this amount on pure guess work, he has given his reasons in the earlier paragraphs which have been cited above to justify the same. The detailed facts and figures have been given and the amounts awarded are neither unreasonable nor improper that will call for interference in exercise of jurisdiction in such matters. Similarly the rejection of counter claim no. 1 by the learned arbitrator does not require any consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case as appropriate reasons are assigned and are indicated from reading of the Award itself. ( 9 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the Award dated 3rd March, 1994 is made rule of the court and decree in terms thereof is passed. 1 by the learned arbitrator does not require any consideration in the facts and circumstances of the case as appropriate reasons are assigned and are indicated from reading of the Award itself. ( 9 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons, the Award dated 3rd March, 1994 is made rule of the court and decree in terms thereof is passed. The petitioner claimant shall also be entitled to interest @ 12% p. a. from the date of decree till realisation.