Delhi High Court C. Lal Gupta vs Delhi Development Authority & Anr. on 27 October, 1999 Equivalent citations: 2000IAD(DELHI)37, 2000(52)DRJ12 ORDER Vikramajit Sen, J. 1. In order to appreciate the disputes which fall for adjudication in these proceedings, it is necessary to detail the claims that were raised before the Arbitrator, who was a nominee of the DDA. The Arbitrator was not only a qualified Civil Engineer, but was the Superintending Engineer (Arbitration) of the DDA. 2. The Claims were the following: S. No. Amount Claimed Amount Granted Claim No. 1 Rs. 2,12,152/ Rs. 48026/ Claim No. 2 Rs. 46,300/ Nil Claim No. 3 Rs. 1,85,200/ Rs. 69,736/ Claim No. 4 Rs. 30,000/ Nil Claim No. 5 Rs. 33,957/ Nil Claim No. 6 Rs. 88,400/ Rs. 24,000/ Claim No. 7 Rs. 3,60,000/ Nil Addl. Claim No.1 Pendente lite Nil interest Future interest @ 12% per annum on Rs. 72026/ pre suit Nil interest (already covered under Claim 1) Addl. Claim No. 2 1,24,165/ Nil Rs. 1,41,762/ 3. The petition under Section 14(2), 17 and 29 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 was filed in April 1992 praying, inter alia, that a judgment be pronounced in terms of the Award dated 30.3.1992. The immediate reaction was the filing of I.A. 3801/94 by the DDA. which are objections under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. 4. I now proceed to consider the Objections seriatim. Claim No. 1: 5. Under this Claim the Award is as follows : The claim is on a/c of less measurement in the final bill. The respondents contended that the claimant did not raise any objection on a/c of less measurements/work done not paid at the time of payment of running bills or final bill. The respondents also relied on the undertaking given by the claimant vide Ext. R9 to the effect that he would not claim anything for unused material. The claimant explained that he did not raise any objection upto the payment of 3rd R/A bill as there was no dispute about the measurements till then. As regards objection not having been raised at the time of final bill, the objection, he said, was not raised on the fear that large amount due to him will not be released by the respondents in case he protested. The letter Ext. R9, he said, was given under duress. I am inclined to agree with the pleading of the claimant that undertaking was given under duress as no prudent man will give such an undertaking in normal circumstances. The claimant has submitted the bills for procurement of material vide Ext. C43 to C50. 3rd bill was paid on 28.1.85. The claimant has stated that there was no dispute of measurement upto 3rd R/A bill. It is seen that bills bearing Exhibits, C50, C48, C47 (page1), C46 (Pae1) and C43 (page 1 & 2) are for the period prior to payment of 3rd R/A bill. Thus, the quantities reflected therein cannot be considered. As regards other bills, the payment for certain quantities brought after payment of 3rd R/A bill have been accounted for and paid in the final bill. Consolidation, premix carpet and seal coat required use of road roller as well as bitumen. The claimant could not produce any evidence to establish the use of road roller as well as consumption of bitumen in regard to consolidation, premix carpet and seal coat. Also, actual consumption of bitumen and the use of road roller fairly tally with the theoretical requirements as compared to the quantities paid in final bill. Thus, considering the evidence adduced and pleadings made by both the parties, I find that the claim is partly justified to an extent of Rs. 48026/ only. 6. The Objections thereto against this adjudication by their nominated Arbitrator, is as follows : "That the award of Rs. 48,026/ under Claim No. 1 is perverse inasmuch as the learned Arbitrator has wrongly assumed that the claimant had signed the final bill without raising any objection under duress whereas no particulars of the circumstances from which such an inference could be drawn were pleaded by the claimant and nor was any such material before the learned Arbitrator to arrive at such an inference. Accordingly, the arbitrator erred in partly allowing the claim in the manner awarded by the arbitrator without any basis as to how such amount was worked out by the arbitrator." 7. In my view there is no substance or merit whatsoever in the contention raised by learn