Back
2003 Supreme(AP) 642
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : G.BIKSHAPATHY, S.SUBHASHAN REDDY
T.A.Choudhary - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P. - Respondent
Decided On : 05-01-03
Headnote:
Land Acquisition Act - Section 30 (a) - Contract Act - Section 70 - Indian Contract Act - Section 17 - Claims of Contractor - Decreed suit - Whether delay in execution of work was caused by defaults indecision and breaches committed by department - Contractor entered into an agreement with department for works forming approaches of Guntur Road of municipal limits including formation of service roads on either side of over bridge in lieu of level crossing - Agreement was entered on between parties and time for completion of work was fixed at months from date of handing over site - According to department site was handed over on but the work was completed only by end - After work was over Contractor laid a claim to Superintending Engineer and thereafter he filed for appointment of Arbitrator – Held, Arbitrator in his award at page stated since respondents have measured work and recorded same in M-Books they ought to have been paid cost of steel involved in overlapping - Arbitrator also referred Indian Contract Act and justified this claim - It is evident from above referred clause that work done by Contractor was only in pursuance of agreement which forms part of his job and rate includes on all work as contemplated clause - Therefore mere recording in M-Book does not entitled Contractor to this claim - M-Book is not available before me court do not see any reason except reasons mentioned - Respondents have measured work and recorded same in M-Book as stated by Arbitrator said reason for allowing this claim is not tenable since it is against specific clause of agreement which is referred already – Order Accordingly
( 1 ) ALL the CMAs, and CRP can be disposed of by a common judgment as they arise out of an award passed by the learned Arbitrator dated 30-9-1991.
( 2 ) THE facts culminating in the present cases are traced out as follows: for the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as the department and the Contractor respectively.
( 3 ) THE Contractor entered into an agreement with the department for the works forming approaches to the Randb in M. I8/4 of Guntur-Repalle Road (K. M. 06 of nidubrole-Govada Road) in Ponnur municipal limits including the formation of the service roads on either side of the overbridge of Nidubrole in lieu of level crossing No. 267 of Vijayawada-Gudur section in Guntur District.
( 4 ) AGREEMENT was entered on 27-11-1978 between the parties and the time for completion of the work was fixed at 15 months from the date of handing over the site. According to the department, the site was handed over on 27-11-1978, but the work was completed only by the end of January, 1985. After the work was over, the Contractor laid a claim on 16-6-1992 to the Superintending Engineer and thereafter he filed OP No. 21 of 1988 for appointment of Arbitrator. Accordingly, the Honourable sri Justice C. Sree Ramulu, Judge (Retd.), high Court of Andhra Pradesh was appointed as Arbitrator to adjudicate all the disputes between the parties. He entered the reference and passed the award on 30-9-1991. Thereafter the contractor filed OS. No. 1088 of 1991 to make the award Rule of Court and filed op No. 269 of 1992 to set aside the award to the extent, the learned Arbitrator rejected the claims. OP No. 47 of 1992 was filed by the department to set aside the award dated 30-9-1991 insofar as it allowed the claims of the Contractor. By a common judgment dated 30-11-1993, the Civil Court decreed the suit OS. No. 1088 of 1991 making the award as Rule of Court except claims no. l, which was rejected. The learned arbitrator also allowed the interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the decree. He dismissed OP No. 269 of 1992 filed by the Contractor and also OP No. 47 of 1992 filed by the Department except claim No. 4. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court in OS No. 1088 of 1991, the department filed CRP No. 2726 of 1994 and dismissing the OP No. 47 of 1992 of the department to set aside the award, the department filed CMA No. 1079 of 1994. CMA No. 953 of 1994 was filed by the Contractor challenging the judgment and decree of the Civil Court insofar as it rejected the claims of the Contractor. The details of the claims made by the Arbitrator and the decision of the Arbitrator are set out infra. A claim petition was filed by the contractor under Clause 73 of PS to APDSS for adjudication of the disputes relating to the execution of the work referred to above and the learned Arbitrator entered on reference on 30-12-1989 and passed the award on 30-9-1991.
( 5 ) IT was the case of the Contractor that on account of the delay on the part of the department in handing over the site completely, the work could not be completed and on account of the non-completion of the Land Acquisition proceedings in most of the places, the work was held up and consequently the time for completion of the work was extended from time to time on account of which the Contractor was made to pay escalated rates. On the other hand, it was the case of the department that the delays are attributable to the contractor and that they are not liable for payment of any extra amounts. The details of the amounts claimed by the Contactor and allowed/rejected by the learned arbitrator are as follows: @@ claim Description Amount Amount no. claimed awarded rs. Rs. 1. Compensation towards element 15,00,000/- 5,70,000/- of escalation 2. Loss due to idle labour and 6,70,000/- Rejected advances 3. Idle wages for machinery 2,62,000/- -do- 4. Payment for overlapse and 1,20,000/- 89. 400/- spacer bars on Steel reinforcement in RCC items 5.
