State of M.P. and Another vs Pare Construction Co.

S.L. Jain, J.—Being aggrieved by the award dated 24-1-2002 passed by the Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal in Reference Case No. 77/99 the applicants herein have filed this revision u/s 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Ad-hikaran Adhiniyam, 1983.

The respondents herein submitted a reference petition before the Madhya Pradesh Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal claiming Rs. 1,95,221/-. Their tender for executing the work of construction of Majoos Khurd Lift Irrigation Scheme in Tehsil Gouharganj, District Raisen was accepted. The work was to be completed within 12 months.

According to the respondents work involved two operations. First was fixing of railing and raising pump house and second was to supply and fixing of pump and equipments deep in the water. The work could not be completed within the stipulated period because the applicants shifted the site. As per contract wooden rafter was to be provided but oral instructions were issued that it be constructed by tubular trusses. The applicants did not provide trusses in time, therefore, respondents were asked to carry out the work as per agreement. The delay was caused by the department by not finally approving the drawing of the lifting arrangement of submersible pump within the reasonable time. The department failed to provide electricity at the side for testing of the pump. Even after 5 years of the issue of the work order and two years after fixing of the pump, department could not provide electricity. For these reasons the work could not be completed and the department forfeited their right to take any action against the respondents.

Respondents submitted their claim before the C.E. on 24-12-2002 claiming an amount of Rs. 1,95,221/- with interest @ 18% p.a. but the same was not decided.

The applicants pleaded that the lay out was given to the respondents in time. Drawing for lifting arrangement was supplied to them in time. Department submitted that they were not negligent in supply of electricity power connection to the respondents. On 22-6-98 the respondents were informed to complete the balance work but they failed to complete the work despite all possible assistance and extension of period. As the work was left incomplete payment could not be made. Without the completion of work, security deposit and earnest money could not have been released. The amount withheld by the department is to be adjusted against the amount to be born-by them to get the balance work completed by engaging another debitable agency.'' Respondents failed to hand over the executed work to the department despite the last extension granted upto 30-6-98.

The evidence was recorded by the Tribunal. On the basis of the evidence the learned Tribunal came to the conclusion that on the instructions of the Executive Engineer in June, 1996, respondents installed pump and accessories in the River Bidh and handed over site to the applicants. Respondents also cautioned about the consequences of the pump and accessories lying in the water without being connected with the electricity. The applicants are responsible for delay due to which the respondents could not complete the work though they completed the civil work by June, 1996 and handed over the site to the applicants. The whole delay is attributable to the applicants.

Learned Counsel appearing for the applicants submitted that the applicants were not responsible for the delay. This contention cannot be accepted. On the appreciation of the evidence the Tribunal has given a clear finding that the lay out was given at a late stage and site was shifted by nearly 50-60 feet from the originally plant site. As per agreement wooden rafter was to be provided for the pump house but in December, 1993 Executive Engineer issued oral instructions at the site to provide tubular trusses but finally they were asked to execute the work as per agreement. There was delay in supplying final approved working drawing for lifting arrangement of submersible pump. Similarly there was an inordinate delay in supply of electricity at site for testing and charging of the pump.

Admittedly, the electric connection was made available in June, 1998. In June, 96, respondents installed pump and accessories in the river and handed over the site to the applicants. The respondents also cautioned about the consequences of the pump and accessories lying in the water without being connected with the electricity. Once respondents handed over the site to the applicants and if any damage is caused to the pump and accessories, thereafter applicants themselves are responsible for it. Since the applicants were responsible for the delay and balance work was not given to a debitable agency, the conclusion of the Tribunal that the respondent is entitled to get Rs. 84,378/-from the applicants towards the final bill is based on proper consideration of the evidence. Since the applicants themselves are responsible for the delay we do not find any fault in the finding of the Tribunal that respondent is also entitled to get refund of Rs. 57,2217- towards security deposited. The finding that the respondent is also entitled to get back the earnest money is also justified. Regarding ante-lite andpendente-lite interest also, the finding of the Tribunal is based on proper appreciation of the evidence.

Learned Counsel for applicants could not satisfy us that the Tribunal has exercised its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity, therefore, we do not find any merit in this revision petition and the same is dismissed in limine.