asking, the opposite party failed to remove the defects within the defect liability period, and therefore, he is liable to compensate by making payment of the amount of expenditure incurred in removing such defects through other agency. It is also to be noted here that the cause of defects in the execution of the contract works were pointed out by the petitioner to the opposite party and the opposite party had failed to rectify the defects in spite of request and the final notice dated 21.02.1998. The defects were removed by M/s BEE PEE & Co. who was assigned to repair the air conditioning plant vide another contract agreement dated 16.09.2000, for which a sum of Rs. 3,47,825/- was paid by the petitioner and the opposite party was paid an amount of Rs. 1,48,000/- during the continuance of the contract. However, as the opposite party did not cooperate in preparing the final bill of the work done by the petitioner, the final bill was drawn by the petitioner on the basis of the "measurement book" entries endorsed by the opposite party. The balance due was accordingly, worked out to be Rs. 23,708/-, being the amount of final bill which was adjusted against the payment made by the petitioner to M/s BEE PEE & Co., and a sum of Rs. 3,24,117/- was deducted from the final bill drawn against the opposite party under the clause ‘risk and expense’. Thereafter, on the prayer being made by the opposite party for appointment of an Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute, the learned sole Arbitrator was appointed, who had passed the award dated 15.03.2003. The award dated 15.03.2003 was modified on 20.04.2003, in terms of Section 33 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act of 1996’, for short).
