1993 (6) TMI 250 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Claim for additional excavation rates.
2. Claim for additional dewatering rates.
3. Claim for additional coursed rubble trap stone masonry.
4. Claim for escalation due to rise in prices.
5. Claim for interest on the amounts due.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Claim for Additional Excavation Rates:
The plaintiff claimed Rs. 75 per cubic meter for additional excavation due to deeper than designed foundation levels. The defendants argued that the plaintiff was already compensated as per the tender and District Scheduled Rates (D.S.R.), and no additional rates were warranted. The court found that the contractor was bound by the tender conditions, which included a clause stating that any additional work should be carried out at the same rates specified in the tender. The court concluded that the claim for Rs. 75 per cubic meter was not justified and awarded Rs. 22 per cubic meter instead, considering the tender rate of Rs. 30 per cubic meter for hard strata.

2. Claim for Additional Dewatering Rates:
The plaintiff sought Rs. 1,000 per running meter for additional dewatering required due to increased foundation depth. The defendants contended that the tender already included dewatering costs and no extra payment was due. The court emphasized that the tender specifications explicitly stated that no extra rate would be paid for additional dewatering arising from increased depth, width, or length of the foundation. Therefore, the claim for additional dewatering rates was rejected.

3. Claim for Additional Coursed Rubble Trap Stone Masonry:
The plaintiff claimed additional payment for increased quantities of coursed rubble trap stone masonry. The defendants argued that the tender conditions covered such increases, and the plaintiff was paid accordingly. The court found that the tender conditions and the final bill paid by the defendants adequately covered the additional work. Hence, the claim for additional coursed rubble trap stone masonry was not maintainable.

4. Claim for Escalation Due to Rise in Prices:
The plaintiff claimed escalation costs due to increased prices of construction materials, labor, and transport. The defendants initially resisted this claim but later conceded that the plaintiff was entitled to a 10% escalation as per government resolutions. The court upheld the trial court's award of Rs. 53,170 for escalation costs, agreeing that the financial expenditure on the project justified the escalation.

5. Claim for Interest on the Amounts Due:
The plaintiff sought interest at 18% on the amounts due. The defendants argued that no interest was stipulated in the tender, and the claim should be governed by the Interest Act, 1978. The court agreed with the defendants, stating that the current rate of interest for deposits was 11%, and awarded interest at this rate for three years prior to the suit. For the period from the date of the suit until realization, the court awarded interest at 6%, as the construction of the bridge was not considered a commercial transaction.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed. The respondent/plaintiff was entitled to recover Rs. 67,000 with 11% interest for three years prior to the suit and 6% interest from the date of the suit until realization. The cross-objections filed by the respondent/contractor were dismissed. The appellant was ordered to pay the balance amount due within eight weeks, to be deposited in the trial court for the respondent to withdraw. No order as to costs was made.