JUDGMENT Badar Durrez Ahmed, J. (Oral) The learned Counsel for the applicant submits that by way of this application the objections to the award were filed. The respondent had also filed objections which were dismissed by an order dated 19.7.2002. Thereafter, payments have also been made in execution of the said award. However, these objections of the applicant/ claimant had not been disposed of. 2. There are only two objections and they pertain to-(i) claim Nos. 2, 3 and 10 and (ii) Claim No. 17. Insofar as the first objection is concerned, it is stated by the learned Counsel for the claimant/ objector that a sum of Rs.36,000/ - has been deducted by the learned Arbitrator without any reason. He submitted that the liability of the claimant did not extend beyond six months of the completion of work. The completion of the work took place on 1.8.1985. The amount of Rs 36,000/- pertains to a period beyond the period of six months from the completion of the work and, therefore, the learned Arbitrator ought not to have deducted the said amount from the claimants claim. The learned Arbitrator had deducted Rs. 36,000/- in the following manner: "It is stated in the affidavit of Mr. N. Kishore EE/DDA that a letter dated 16.12.1987 (Ex. R-2) and yet another letter dated 9.2.1988 (Ex. R-1) in this regard were sent but the claimants paid no heed. In proof, they alleged that in one case the allottee K.K. Sharma approached the consumer Forum, vide order dated 24.4.1998 of the Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum No. IV Delhi in respect of Block R. 53/0 Dilshad Garden in case No. 1292/97/30 with a complaint that there was seepage in toilet, kitchen and bathroom and further that on 22.8.1996, plaster and iron of the ceiling in one room fell down. The Forum directed the D.D.A. to repair the damage within 3 months and also pay Rs. 10,000/- as compensation and Rs. 1000/- as costs of litigation. A copy of the said order has been filed. In their application dated 28.7.1998, the respondents have stated that the repair work directed as aforesaid has cost them Rs. 25000/- upon consideration I find that this amount of Rs. 36,000/- deserves to be deducted by the Respondents from the amount remaining to be paid to the claimants." 3. A copy of the said order has been filed. In their application dated 28.7.1998, the respondents have stated that the repair work directed as aforesaid has cost them Rs. 25000/- upon consideration I find that this amount of Rs. 36,000/- deserves to be deducted by the Respondents from the amount remaining to be paid to the claimants." 3. The learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that this is a finding of fact and the learned Arbitrator has considered the evidence on record and thereafter permitted the respondent to retain the amount of Rs. 36,000/-. She submitted that this Court does not sit as a Court of appeal over the findings of an Arbitrator and, therefore, the said finding ought not to be disturbed. 4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the parties and I find that the sum of Rs. 36,000/- pertains to an expenditure made by the respondent after the expiry of six months beyond the completion date. The claimants were only liable for any defects which would have arisen during that six months period, therefore, the claimant cannot be denied or deprived of the said sum of Rs. 36,000/- which was not at all relatable to the period of six months. To this extent, the award made by the learned Arbitrator is ex facie wrong. It is not a case of re-appreciation of evidence or disturbing a finding of fact. The Arbitrator had completely ignored the specific term of the contract between the parties that the claimants liability was restricted to defects within six months of the completion date. The said amount of Rs. 36,000/- did not have any relation to any defect during the said six month period. 5. With regard to the next objection, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Arbitrator has disallowed the claim for Rs. 27,907/- for outer plastering beyond 10 metres height relying upon Clause 3.15 of the specifications. He submitted that Clause 3.15 was overridden by Clause 13.1.9.8 of the CPWD Specifications of work at Delhi, Volume Nos. II and III of 1967 (with correction slip upto the date of receipt of the tender). 27,907/- for outer plastering beyond 10 metres height relying upon Clause 3.15 of the specifications. He submitted that Clause 3.15 was overridden by Clause 13.1.9.8 of the CPWD Specifications of work at Delhi, Volume Nos. II and III of 1967 (with correction slip upto the date of receipt of the tender). Although the CPWD Specifications for works at Delhi do help the claimant/objector, but they are not applicable to the present agreement because Clause 3.1 of the specifications and conditions of the agreement between the parties, which provides for the application of the CWPD Specifications, has been deleted. Therefore, no grievance can be made with regard to the Arbitrators award in respect of Claim No. 17. 6. This application stands allowed to the extent that the objection in respect of the disallowance of the claim to the extent of Rs. 36,000/- is sustained. However, the objection with regard to claim No. 17 is rejected. The amount of Rs. 36,000/- shall be payable by the respondents to the claimant along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the award till the same is actually paid. Application partly allowed.