A contractor is entitled to payment for work done under a contract, even if the completion of the contract is delayed, if the delay is attributable to the other party to the contract.

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

The plaintiff claims a money decree, based on the sum of Rs. 81,54,667/-towards various heads, on account of amounts due from the Defendant (hereafter called "DDA") in a works contract; additionally, the plaintiff claims interest, at a quantified rate, as well as pendent lite and future interest. The claim is premised on the performance of a works contract, entered into by the parties, for construction of 448 flats at Jhilmil Colony.

2. The facts, to the extent they are uncontroverted, are that the plaintiff, who describes himself as sole proprietor of a firm, successfully bid, and was awarded the contract, by the DDA. The bid was accepted on 09.9.1991; the written contract (Ex-PW-1/2) was entered into on 16.09.1991. The time for performance, agreed upon by the parties, was 15 months, from the date of signing the agreement. It was however, extended. The plaintiff says that this was due to various defaults by DDA; the latter however denies that position. Eventually, the construction was completed on 12.12.1994. The completion certificate was issued on 6th July, 1995. The plaintiff relies on a document (Ex.PW-1/3) issued on 12.12.1994, evidencing the date of completion of construction.

3. The plaintiff contends that in terms of the Agreement, Ex. PW-1/2, the Final Bill had to be settled by DDA, within six months of completion. The suit claims the sum of Rs. 81,54,667/50 from the DDA towards various heads, which are described briefly hereafter. Claim (i) pertains to balance of final bill amount, i.e. Rs. 5,23,195/-. According to the plaintiff, the final bill was payable within six months from completion, i.e. 11.6.1995; DDA is alleged to have failed to pay this. The bill was submitted on 16.06.1996. The plaintiff admits to some part payment on 11.09.1996, after which it submitted a fresh bill on 10.09.1997. The sum of Rs. 5,23,195/-is claimed on this score.

4. Claim (ii) is for the release of bank guarantee to the extent of Rs. 3,00,000/-, which the plaintiff furnished in favour of DDA, for the due performance of the contract. It is alleged that in terms of the contract, the guarantee had to be released within six months after completion, yet the DDA has not done so. The plaintiff claims the sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-on this account. Claim (iii) relates to incidental expenses towards revalidation of bank guarantee for the period beyond the contract, after its completion; the plaintiff says that a sum of Rs. 50,000/-is to be paid by DDA.

5. According to the suit, the cost of work done beyond the stipulated date of competition @30% extra amounts to Rs. 34,43,818.00/-; the plaintiff claims this. It is contended that the work could not be completed within the stipulated period on account of the following defaults of DDA:

(a) delay in handing over of site for work;

(b) delay in issue of stipulated material;

(c) delay in release of payments for work done,

(d) delay in laying of electrical conduits by the agency appointed by the Defendant.

(e) delay in conveying of decisions to the plaintiff from time to time during/relating to the execution of work.

6. The suit says that due to the aforesaid defaults of DDA, the work could be completed only on 12.12.1994, i.e. in a period of 39 months, as against the stipulated period of 15 months contained in the agreement between the parties. During the delayed period, the price of material and labour increased in the market. It became impractical and un-economical for the plaintiff to execute the work within the accepted/ quoted rates. The plaintiff says that the rates quoted by him were in the month of May 1991; he however, was made to complete the work at the same rates even in the 1994. DDA is therefore, liable to make good the loss incurred (by the plaintiff) on this account before the completion of the work and after the originally stipulated date of completion. The plaintiff