even from part users of the facility who did not cross the ROB was acknowledged. Thus, design of the BOT Agreement acknowledged the right of the Concessionaire to recover its investments, other expenses and profit by realizing fee from the highway users of the facility constructed and maintained by it. The contract framework was premised on estimated traffic that was expected to use the facility. The Concessionaire, of course, bore the risk of reduced traffic. However, where reduction of traffic was not due to action within the concessionaire‟s control, it had to be compensated on account of Clause 11.3 of the BOT Agreement, which specifies reduction in the fee due to "injunction from any court" as a force majeure event. Consequently, the Court is unable to agree with the submission of the Petitioner that the learned Arbitrator proceeded on an erroneous interpretation of Clause 11.3 of the BOT Agreement. In this view, the interpretation given by the tribunal of the injunction order, which resulted in its inability to collect fees for part use, was not only plausible but justified and warranted. This Court, therefore, holds that the construction of the contract in this regard was within the scope and jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal. Likewise, factually, there can be no quibble about the fact that the SG‟s ruling was accepted and in fact payments were made to Ashvika by the State. Furthermore, SG meetings were presided over by the officials of the Union Ministry of Surface Transport, and, thus, the genuineness of the claims of compensation by Ashvika were accepted in principle. The quantum of compensation was a matter of dispute. In this regard, the learned Single Judge noted that the tribunal based its decision on an elaborate discussion and reasoning, justifying why the SG‟s opinion was not acceptable, because it merely considered truck traffic were engaged
