Vijender Jain, J.
(1) The award was made on reference of disputes which arose between the claimant and the respondent on 19.11.1992. Aggrieved by the award, the respondent has filed objection under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act 1940. Mr.V.K.Sharma, counsel for the respondent has contended that the award of the arbitrator in relation to Claim No.2(A)(i) is wholly unjustified on the ground that no reasons for awarding a sum of Rs. 5,030.00 to the claimant has been given under the award. In support of his contention he has cited College of Vocational Studies v. S.S. Jaitely AIR 1987 Delhi 134).
(2) Another serious challenge of learned counsel for the objector is with regard to the award of amount of Rs. 75,806.00 to the claimant for penal rate recovery. Mr.Sharma has contended that the learned arbitrator has not taken into consideration Clause 42 of the Agreement. Under Clause 42 of the agreement, if consumption was found to be more than the theoretical consumption plus permissible valuation, the credit ought to have been given to the respondent Mr.Sharma has contended that on this score the finding of the arbitrator, is wrong and arbitrator has misconducted the proceedings.
(3) I do not see any force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent. The arbitrator has discussed in detail that respondents had not taken into consideration the extra quantity required for 88 sq. meter of plinth protection and the effect of factual position that cement bags issued from store were under-weight. While calculating torn steel, the theoretical consumption variation were worked out separately for each dia bar, which was not provided in the agreement and no allowance was given for torn steel being over-weight the record of which were maintained by the respondent. The arbitrator has also discussed that with regard to Si Pipes, no allowance has been given for portion of pipes going inside the sockets. The arbitrator considered all the material on record and has come to the finding that the penal recovery was unjustified and, thereforee, has allowed a sum of Rs. 75,806.00 to the claimant. I do not see any illegality in the award of the arbitrator on this score.
(4) Mr. Sharma has vehemently contended that award of Rs. 12,500.00 on account of additional expenditure incurred due to indecision about the `jallis' is also arbitrary and the arbitrator has not given any reasons in the award for fixing the rate of Rs. 50.00 per flat. No basis or material were before the arbitrator to arrive at a finding of Rs. 50.00 per flat and the award is arbitrary on this claim and not justified.
(5) Yet another objection vehemently convassed before me by the learned counsel for the objector is with regard to the award of Rs.1,26,839.00 to the claimant on the claim of Rs. 7,50,000.00 on account of extra work @ 25% on tendered rates on the balance work carried out after the stipulated date even after the extended period of 15th September, 1983.
(6) The arbitrator has discussed this claim at length on the basis of material on record and on the basis of the letter of the respondent the arbitrator has come to the finding that the work was complete in October, 1985. In addition to the letter of the respondent the arbitrator has also given a finding that the allotment by the respondent was started in December, 1985 and most of the flats were handed over to the allottees in December, 1985 itself. The arbitrator has also given a reasoned finding that it was on account of the delay in late issue of structural drawings (C 2 to C 12), delay in handing over complete site (C 11), the late issue of foundation design for block 4(C 13), delay in issuance of door shutters, late decision of concrete coping on parapet and stair case and restricted supply of cement, delay in approval of layout plant of sewerlines, waterlines, late issue of cement on working days, these were all contributory factors which caused delay in completion. There is a definite finding on this score by the arbitrator that the delay was caused on account of non-fulfilment of reciprocal promises by the respondent.
(7) I do not see any force in the argument of counsel for the respondent that the arbitrator has passed his award while taking into consideration clause 10 Cc which the Government of India has introduced at that time while entering in contracts. As a matter of fact, the arbitrator has come to its own independent reasoning while awarding the claim under this head and has given benefit of Clause 10 Cc while computing the delay. The arbitrator's finding on this claim is well reasoned and cannot be interfered by this Court.
(8) Another contention raised by Mr.Sharma, learned counsel for the objector is with regard to allowing the additional claim nos. 1, 2 and 3 of the claimant. These claims relate to pre-suit, pendente lite and future interest. It has been contended by counsel for the petitioner that these claims regarding interest were submitted to the Engineer Member of the respondent along with other claims by the claimant. However, as the Engineer Member of the respondent did not refer these disputes pertaining to interest to the arbitrator, the claimant was compelled to file appropriate proceedings in this regard in this Court for having the reference of this matter to the arbitrator. The arbitrator has not granted pre-suit interest. However, the arbitrator has granted pendente lite interest w.e.f. 21.11.89 to the claimant. I do not see any infirmity in grant of pendente lite interest by arbitrator after holding that delay in execution was caused by the respondent.
(9) Another grievance of the learned counsel for the objector is that arbitrator has rejected all the counter claims of the respondent. In support of his contention, Mr.Sharma has contended that once the interest claim by the claimant was allowed by the arbitrator, the counter claims of the respondent ought to have been allowed. In support of his contention he has cited Kocher Construction Company v. Union of India and another 1996 1 A L R 269.
(10) I am afraid this authority is of no help to the respondent as in the present case the respondent has raised this claim after four years of reference. Whereas it was on account of the fault of the Engineer Member of the respondent to whom the claimant has referred the claims qua interest who has chosen not to refer claim of the claimant, although the same was with him at the time when all the claims were filed by the claimant initially in the year 1988. In any event of the matter, when the reference of these claims was made by the Court, the respondent chose not to have their counter claims referred to the arbitrator, nor raised the dispute regarding limitation. As a matter of fact, at this stage they cannot be permitted to take the plea as they themselves were responsible for not referring the claim of interest to the arbitrator. thereforee, there is no parity between the claim regarding interest of the claimant and the counter claim of the respondent.
(11) However, in relation to claim no. 2 (A)(i) and claim no. 6, I find force in the contention of learned counsel for the objector that arbitrator has not given any reasoning nor has referred any material on the basis of which the arbitrator has awarded the sum in question in relation to claim no.2(A)(i) and claim no. 6. The order of the arbitrator regarding claim no. 2(A)(i) and claim no. 6 is set-aside. Rest of the award is severable and the same is made rule of the Court. The claimant/petitioner shall be entitled to all interest at the rate of 15% after expiry of six weeks, if respondent fails to make the payment in terms of the decree, till realisation.