In a Turn-Key contract, the contractor bears full responsibility for execution; failure to meet contractual obligations excludes claims for damages arising from project failure.

JUDGMENT :

GEETHA K. B., J.

1. These appeals are filed by the defendants/appellants challenging the judgment and decree passed in Commercial O.S.No.2/2020 on the file of Principal District Judge, Koppal dated 20.02.2021 and order passed in Civil Review Petition No.1/2021 dated 08.07.2021 and also dismissal of Counter-Claim filed by defendants respectively.

2. As both appeals arise out of the same case, both appeals are clubbed together, arguments heard and common judgment is being delivered.

3. Parties would be referred with their ranks, as they were before the Trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.

4. Plaintiff has filed the suit before Trial Court praying for damages on several claims i.e., claim Nos.(A) to (M) totally amounting to Rs.7,00,05,930/- with interest at 18% per annum from the date of suit till date of payment; for Court costs and for such other reliefs.

5. The case of plaintiff in nutshell is that plaintiff is a Partnership Firm registered under the provisions of the Indian Partnership Act, 1932, represented by its Managing Partner, Mr.B.Venkata Reddy. The plaintiff was Class-I Contractor registered with Government of Karnataka. Defendant No.4 has called for tender for construction of Cable Stayed Bridge (balance portion) across the Tungabhadra River from Anegundi Village, Gangavathi taluk to Hampi, vide Tender Notification No.1431 dated 20.08.2007. In pursuance to which, the plaintiff has submitted his tender which was accepted, work order was issued and parties entered into Agreement No.167/12/2008 dated 15.12.2008 for a contract value of Rs.662.4 lakhs with stipulation to complete the work within 6 months from the date of agreement.

6. The nature of work involved is highly technical and requires expertise consultancy and the same is quite different from general engineering skills required for ordinary bridge work. There was no sufficient time for plaintiff to acquire technical expertise and information with regard to the condition and strength of the existing cables prior to submission of bids. Since the plaintiff had only 18 days time to submit the tender documents, plaintiff had no time to get the expert advice to investigate and to know the condition of the existing cables of the existing bridge. It is surprising to note that defendants had no clue and methodology as to how to go with the execution of the work. It was a dis-jointed effort on the part of defendants without any proper planning to execute such a mind boggling work. Defendants did not furnish any methodology along with the bid documents to acquaint with the nature of the work to be done and also to proceed with the work.

7. Defendants have not investigated the condition and strength of the existing cables which were perhaps executed some years back, either prior to calling for bids or during finalisation of bids, though they took more than one year to finalise the bids.

8. However, the time stipulated for work was only six months which is impossible to complete because of the highly skilled and risky nature of work involved in the present case. Plaintiff had his own reservations but he had no other alternatives except to submit to the dictates of the defendants being a weaker party.

9. Plaintiff further contended that, defendant No. 4 directed the plaintiff to get the drawings a