Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(a) Final coat of painting, plastic emulsion and water proofing, cement paint.

(b) Fixing of CP fitting, door fitting if any other required

(c) Minor repair where required.

(d) Fixing of glass pans in window and doors The Superintending Engineer of the defendant department has issued completion certificate on | 07.201 1 and no notice of defect was ever issued to the laintiff firm during the maintenance period.

The completion of the work was recorded by the defendant no. ~ 2.0n 14.07.2011 in MB no. 009460 at page no. 85. The plaintiff submitted a letter dated 28.09.2011 in the office of defendant M/s Gaur Constructions VS Delhi Development Authority 'ame RN enna RUNNIN TELL T LNT TLS, LILLE LCC LOT TTTTTIIAOT NN, tts eee maTTANDDNSOSssSbSScCNN Page 3 Vo no. 2 requesting to take over the completed site and surplus material within three days and to finalise the contract for giving the arrears of claims. The said letter was issued after compliance of all the directions given in the completion certificate. The release of security amount was also demanded but no reply was given. However, the surplus material was taken and the possession of the completed building was also taken without giving nothing in writing. Another letter dated 14.12.2011 was submitted requesting for finalisation of the bill and release of dues to which areply dated 26.12.2011 was sent by the defendant no. 2, thereby, pointing out certain defects in order to counter the claim of the plaintiff. Plaintiff gave a reply of this letter to the defendant company through a letter dated | 04.01.20 12. Again, a letter dated 17.03.2012 was sent by the tiff to the defendant no. 2 requesting to provide the copy the agreement and third running bill and that again on

- defendant paid 4% and the final bill and plaintiff accepted the said cheque without any demur and protest.

oe the defect liability period, but no rectification was done. Notice _of the plaintiff dated 14.12.2011 was duly replied by the defendant vide this order dated 26.12.2011. M/s Gaur Constructions VS Delhi Development Authority g. Vide letter dated 02.05.2012, defendant requested the plaintilt to meet the defendant for acceptance of the final bill but plaintiff avoided the same. Defendant had no option but to finalise the bill and to release the payment of the amount which were due and payable, after withholding the amount on account of rectification of work not done by the plaintiff. As regards, the surplus material, it is stated that defendant had taken the surplus material which was only steel and it has also taken the possession of the Community Hall. Only cement and steel were issued from the DDA Stores. The entire cement was consumed and hence, actual surplus material which remained was steel which was taken back and duly accounted for. It is denied that defendant failed to furnish copy of 3 and final bill. Defendant again sent a letter dated 02.07.2012 to the plaintiff to collect the documents and to submit the final bill which was not responded to. Defendant intimated the plaintiff about its obligation under the agreement to submit the detailed measurement of the work executed. But plaintiff failed to M/s Gaur Constructions VS Delhi Development Authority submit such measurement and the representative of pl aintitt who had attended the office for finalisation of the bill also refuted the measurements which were recorded by the herein as under:-

31. From the careful reading of the said extract, it is clear that the Contractor i.e. plaintiff had removed the surplus material from the site before the completion on 14.07.2011.

32. From the perusal of the written statement of the defendant, 'it is found that the defendant had made payment of Rs.3519/-

- towards. the disposal of the surplus material whereas the iff d claimed Rs. 1,50,000/- towards the same. It would ual to imagine or observe that averment of a that a meagre amount of Rs. 3519/- only was spent | he plaintiff for removing the surplus material from the site 'and excavating a site for construction of a community hall, ~ M/s Gaur Constructions VS Delhi Development Authority does not inspire confidence. The plaintiff and the defendant had filed several letters on record which has been written by them to each other to show the demands made by the plaintiff and the response of defendant to such demands. The letter dated 28.09.2011 (Ex. P5) written by the plaintiff to the defendant shows that he had demanded the final bill and have specifically stated that he has not received the money for the excavation and disposal of surplus material and had demanded the amount on account of the same. There is no reply to the said letter. Another letter Ex. P6 dated 14.12.2011 was written by the plaintiff to the defendant asking for the finalization of the bill and the balance payment. This letter was responded to by the defendant vide its letter dated 26.12.2011 Ex. P-7 which has already been reproduced in the preceding paragraphs.

34, In the said letter, plaintiff has clearly mentioned that payment of Rs. 3519/- towards disposal of the malba/surplus material is wrong and he had made allegation against the Assistant Engineer (A.E.) concerned at that point of time. It has already come in the cross examination of the DW1 that no action was ever taken against the concerned A.E. Tejram Bhadana despite the complaints made by the plaintiff against him. The grievance of the plaintiff was never addressed even bs - denying the allegations made by plaintiff against the said said letter Ex. P16, it is specifically mentioned that it Engineer (A.E.) was furnishing wrong information "and. this letter was addressed to Executive Engineer (E.E.) SS S.E.D-8, DDA. In these circumstances, the DDA could do the M/s Gaur Constructions VS Dethi Development Authority x 4 Page 35 least by providing the record entries to the plaintiff so that he could verify the same. It is nowhere stated by defendant that the record entries were ever supplied at the asking of plaintiff. In these circumstances, when letters of contemporary period are on record, there is no reason to disbelieve the claim no, 2 of the plaintiff which is on account of non-reimbursement of the amount sought towards disposal of the surplus. Hence, plaintiff is entitled to claim no. 2 for a sum of Rs.1,46,479.