P.K.JAISWAL,J. - (1.)This civil revision under Section 19 of The M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 has been filed against the award dated 23.2.2000 by which M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal allowed the claim of the respondent-contractor in part and awarded Rs. 3,49,837/-with proportionate cost and interest out of total claim of Rs. 11,94,605/- under various heads.
(2.)The undisputed facts of the case are that the respondent's tender for work of construction of submersible bridge across Kshipra river in k.m. 4/2 of Ujjain Bherongarh road was sanctioned for a lumpsum cost of Rs. 52,33,000/-. After executing the agreement, the work order to start the work was issued on 15.12.1988 for completing the work in 20 months excluding monsoon period from 16th June to 15th October.
(3.)According to the contractor, soon after receiving the work order, he mobilized his resources and arrived at site of work with men, material, equipment and machinery and established his camp. The general arrangement drawing (G.A.D.) was approved by General Manager - I (designs) on 14.12.1988 but the Project Manager intimated him that certain changes/modifications in the G.A.D. had been suggested by him for which decision is awaited. The contractor vide his letter dated 3.2.1989 brought the delay in giving at layout to the notice of the Project Manager, the layout was finally completed on 3.3.1989. Thus, the work was delayed due to delay in giving layout. The contractor further stated that the work was also delayed due to not deciding foundation level of abutments, non-supply of steel required for foundation, delay in approval of drawings. The work was also delayed due to collapse of foundation of abutments resulting in extra burden of re-excavation, additional work of construction of extra brackets for carrying water pipe lines. Due to these reasons, the work could not be completed in stipulated time and finally completed on 15.3.1992. The time was extended without any penalty upto 15.3.1992. The contractor has claimed for compensation for delay. It is also alleged that he had not paid for extra items such as reexcavation of abutments, extra rate for Narmada sand, extra rate for construction of R.C.C. brackets etc., the department had wrongly recovered hire charges for departmental centering/shuttering and recovered amount for extra recovery made from de-watering and not paid the final bill and also not refunded the security deposit. The summary of claims of the contractor is as follows:- JUDGEMENT_372_LAWS(MPH)8_2018_1.html