Vijender Jain, J.
(1) It has been contended by learned counsel for the Dda that award under claim no.3 by the Arbitrator regarding refund of Rs.98,000.00 is bad and violates the terms of the agreement and that part of the award be sent aside. Ms.Salwan has contended that the contractor had agreed to give rebate on road rollers and bitumen vide his letter dated 19.9.1984. She has contended that at that relevant time, the bitumen was cheaper in open market then the rate at which it was given by DDA. thereforee, the contractor had written to the Chief Engineer of the respondent that he was prepared to supply bitumen by procuring it from outside sources at a cheaper rate and for that reason, he gave rebate of 4% on bitumen as well as for using his own road rollers. However, respondent by their letter dated 29.9.1984 categorically stated that work had been accepted by the respondent at the rate of 40.81% above the estimated cost of Rs.8,89,599.00 and thereafter in the said letter it has been stated that the Department would avail rebate of 4% on road rollers and bitumen. On the basis of said letter, the contractor allowed the rebate of 4% and restricted the same for the estimated cost of work, which was Rs.8,89,599.00 . However, when the work was completed, the cost went by Rs.34,12,033.00 .
(2) The arbitrator has discussed the arguments of both the parties and has given a reasoned award holding that the letter of award dated 29.8.1984 which formed the part of the agreement says that the Department shall avail relate of 4% on estimated cost and the very letter says that the estimated cost of work was Rs.8,89,599.00 . The Arbitrator has also held that there was no provision in the agreement authorising the Department to avail rebate beyond what was prescribed in the award letter. On this count, Arbitrator has held that reduction of rebate in excess of about Rs.1 lakh was Uncouth actual and unjustified.
(3) MS.YSALWAN has further contended that the award of Rs.1,43,663.00 under claim no.5 on account of interest for delayed payment in the final bill and payment of Rs.5,000.00 is also bad in law and deserves to be set aside.
(4) I do not see any merit in the contention of counsel for the respondent. The arbitrator who was the Superintending Engineer of the respondent was well conversant with the terms and conditions of tender. I do not like to substitute my reasoning for the reasoning of the Arbitrator. When parties on their free will have chosen the forum of arbitration in exclusion of normal civil remedies, the Court will not like to set aside the award when no infirmity is found in the award. The objections of the respondent are dismissed. Award is made rule of the Court. Decree in terms of the award is passed accordingly. If the awarded amount is not paid within a period of six weeks, the claimant shall be entitled for interest @ 18% per annum from the date of decree till realisation.
(5) Petition stands disposed of.