Back
2018 Supreme(Chh) 670
BEFORE THE CHHATTISGARH ARBITRATION TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR
T.P. Sharma, Chairman, Ashok Kumar Panda, Member (J)
B.P. Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
Chhattisgarh Rural Road Development Agency – Respondent
Reference Case No. 3 of 2016
Decided On : 05-04-2018
For the Appellant :Ajay Pratap Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent:G.B. Ghatge, Advocate
Headnote:
Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 - Section 7 - Invited tender - Construction and maintenance - Illegal actions - Claim amount - Respondents invited tender for construction and maintenance of rural road under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna, Phase VI for package No. CG-10-26 for district Korba (C.G.) and this contractual work was awarded to petitioner, an agreement bearing No. was entered into and between the petitioner and respondents work order (Ex. D-3) was issued on stipulated period for completion of work was 12 months including rainy season accordingly, construction of work was to be completed contract amount for construction of road was Rs. 324.86 lakhs and the cost of maintenance of road for 5 years from date of completion of the work was total amounting - Petitioner being aggrieved by illegal actions of respondents invoked their right to Arbitration under clause 24 of agreement and made a quantified claim with an interest at rate of 15% before competent authority but, there was no response from respondents to their representation - Petitioner is entitled for refund of encashed Bank Guarantee, for release of payment of bill for maintenance of roads, as compensation under compensation events at rate of 6% of value of work done, for ante-lite interest at rate of 10% on claim amount, total amounting to Rs. 51.93 lakhs – Held, petitioner has not filed any document to show that he had responded to this notice which was served upon him. Ex. D-11 is also admitted by petitioner which proves that petitioner did not maintain road even within extended period of 6 months - Therefore, this notice was issued to show cause as to why maintenance work should not be done departmentally at petitioners cost and cost be recovered from petitioner - Petitioner has not filed any evidence to deny or contradict this fact - Under these circumstances all these documents clearly indicates that petitioner did not maintain the road under terms and conditions of contract - Court are coming to last claim which relates to ante-lite interest at rate of 15% on claim No. 01 to 03 from amounting - At outset, it would be worthwhile to mention here that there is no clause in agreement for grant of interest - Besides this since it is found that cause for delay in execution of work was not attributable to respondents and encashment of Bank Guarantee was not unjustified, further petitioner is not entitled for compensation it is therefore petitioner is also not entitled for claim as sought - In view of aforementioned reasons and findings Court do not find any substance in petition and petition being devoid of merits deserves to be dismissed and hereby accordingly dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Ashok Kumar Panda, Member (J)
1. The petitioner a proprietorship organisation has filed this reference petition under Section 7 of the Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (in short the Adhiniyam, 1983) against the respondents for an award of Rs. 51.93 lakhs and Pendente-lite and Post-lite interest on the claim amount.
2. The facts not in dispute are that, the respondents invited tender for construction and maintenance of rural road under Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojna, Phase VI (year 2006-07) for package No. CG-10-26 for district Korba (C.G.) and this contractual work was awarded to the petitioner, an agreement bearing No. 5/DL/2007-08 (Article "A") was entered into and between the petitioner and respondents on 06/06/2007, work order (Ex. D-3) was issued on 07/06/2007, stipulated period for completion of work was 12 months including rainy season accordingly, the construction of work was to be completed on 18/05/2008, the contract amount for construction of road was Rs. 324.86 lakhs and the cost of maintenance of the road for 5 years from the date of completion of the work was at Rs. 8.49 lakhs, total amounting to Rs. 333.35 lakhs. The construction work could not be completed within the stipulated period, however, it was completed within the extended period and a completion certificate was issued in favour of the petitioner.
3. According to the petitioner the work contained in package No. CG-10-26 was comprised of construction of 4 No. of roads totalling in length of 14.15 Kms. as under:-
(a) Balco-Rukbahari-Parsakhola road-7.00 Km.
(b) Balco-Ajgarbahar-Rogbahari road-3.20 Kms.
(c) Ajgarbahar-Kachhar-Donga Ghat-2.25 Kms.
(d) Ajgarbahar-Kachhar-Kodia Ghat-1.70 Kms.
There was hindrance put by the Forest Department in execution of work which affected the progress of work considerably and, therefore, the work could not be completed within the original stipulated period. Since, the cause of delay was not attributable to the petitioner, the respondents granted extension of time, vide Ex. P-4 till 15/06/2009. The petitioner completed the work within the extended date of completion and Ex. P-6 a completion certificate was issued by the Competent Authority. The petitioner was required to do maintenance of the roads for a period of 5 years from the date of completion of construction of roads. The petitioner also performed the maintenance work for 5 years. Maintenance period of 5 years expired on 15/06/2014 and after completion of maintenance period the department took over the roads and as such, there was no dispute at all in respect of construction and maintenance in contract of package No. CG 10-26. The respondents vide Ex. P-7 also released the security deposit in favour of petitioner on 13/12/2012. The petitioner had furnished a Bank Guarantee in favour of the respondents for an amount of Rs. 16,67,000/- came to be extended for a further period of 6 months as there was a delay in completion of work. But, the respondents encashed the Bank Guarantee submitted in this package for satisfaction of alleged failure of the petitioner in an another contract under package No. CG-10-31. The petitioner had opposed the encashment of the Bank Guarantee and had also moved an application for an order of stay against encashment of Bank Guarantee before the District Judge, Korba on 02/06/2014 which was not yet decided till the presentation of the instant petition. The petitioner being aggrieved by the illegal actions of respondents invoked their right to Arbitration under clause 24 of agreement and made a quantified claim of Rs. 45.16 lakhs with an interest at the rate of 15% before the competent authority on 02/07/2014 but, there was no response from the respondents to their representation. The petitioner is entitled for Rs. 16.67 lakhs for refund of encashed Bank Guarantee, Rs. 8.49/- for release of payment of bill for maintenance of roads, Rs. 20.00 lakhs as compensation under compensation events at the rate of 6% of the value of
