Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

v) There is no change in Law as claimed by the Appellant.

The project has remained in the same Seismic Zone at pre-bid and post-bid stage. It appears to be a case of genuine mistake on the part of Procurer which is amply covered by the disclaimers in RFQ, RFP and PPA.

10. Let us now examine the RFP dated 10.6.2010. The RFP has the following disclaimer in the notes at the beginning of the document.

"While this RfP has been prepared in good faith, neither the Procurer, Authorised Representative nor their directors or employees or advisors/consultants make Appeal no. 207 of 2012 any representation or warranty, express or implied or accept any responsibility or liability, whatsoever, in respect of any statements or omissions herein, or the accuracy, completeness or reliability of information contained herein, and shall incur no liability under any law, statute, rules or regulations as to the accuracy, reliability or completeness of this RfP, even if any loss or damage is caused to the Bidder by any act or omission on their part.

19. We do not find any provision in Change in Law clause relating to compensation for additional cost or extension of time due to incorrect information or date relating to the project site provided by the Procurer in the competitive bidding documents. There is a provision for change in any consents, approvals or licenses for the project, otherwise than for default of the Seller to be considered as "Change in Law". However, change in Seismic Zone of the site due to incorrect information given in the bidding documents will not be covered under this provision as the information on Seismic Zone is not a consent or an approval or a licence and thus not covered under 'Change in Law' provision.

Appeal no. 207 of 2012

31. Learned Counsel for the Appellants has contended that the Respondent no.1 had misrepresented and/or erroneously represented by way of providing incorrect seismological information for the project site causing monetary loss and damages on account of cost escalation and time delays in the implementation of the project. We feel that there was no malafide or willful default on the part of the Respondent no. 1 in incorrectly intimating the Seismic Zone. We agree with the findings of the State Commission that it appeared to be a case of genuine mistake on the part of the procurer which is amply covered by the disclaimers in the RFQ and RFP. We also find that erroneous intimation of the Seismic Zone by the Procurer in the bid documents would not be covered in Procurer's Event of Default in terms of the PPA entered into between the Appellant no.1 and the Respondent no.1.

This is borne out of the fact that verification of Seismic Zone was confined by IIT, Roorkee on the same day referred to it by the Appellant no.1. We find from the map given in IS 1893 (Part I):2002 that Patiala is in Zone III and is located very close to the boundary of Zone demarcation between Zone III and Zone IV. The project site is in district Patiala and is located on the North Eastern Part of Patiala i.e. towards the line of demarcation of Zone III & IV. The foot note in the above map states that the towns falling at the boundary of Zone Appeal no. 207 of 2012 demarcation line between two zones shall be considered in high Zone. Thus, a look at the map would show that the project site has to be considered in Zone IV. We feel that the Appellant has not been diligent in verifying the Seismic Zone of the project site before submitting the bid. There is no provision in the change in law provision in PPA to claim compensation for additional cost or extension of time due to incorrect information relating to project site provided by the procurer in the competitive bidding documents. The incorrect information about the Seismic Zone in the bid documents is also not covered in the Procurer's Event of Default as per the PPA. Accordingly, the claim of the Appellant regarding change of Seismic Zone is rejected.