Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. As per the rate of progress which formed part of the agreement, the percentage of work to be completed on the contract was clearly mentioned on month to month basis. Along with the agreement, certain special conditions were also incorporated by which, under clause 12, all the risk of loss of or damage to work, physical property and of personal injury and death which arise during and in consequence of the performance of the contract, are the responsibility of the Contractor. In terms of clause 13, the petitioner was required to provide in the joint names of the Engineer and the petitioner, an Insurance Cover from the start date to six months from the completion of work and the said Insurance Cover would cover loss of or damage to works, plant and material, loss of damage of property in connection with the Contract and personal injury or death.

14. Further, the petitioner was informed that they are well aware of the condition of the site and a sum of Rs.5000/- was imposed as per the clauses 57.1 and 57.2 of the General Conditions of the contract and the petitioner is fully responsible for all risk of loss or damage to work already done as per clause 12 of the Special Conditions of the Contract. Therefore, the petitioner was advised to resume the work at once, show good progress and complete it before 31.08.2008. It appears that no progress was made by the petitioner and the second respondent by another communication dated 30.05.2008 informed the petitioner, furnishing certain details about the variation in the depth by stating that the variation is meager. It was further informed that the petitioner has done work upto 143 meters length to a height of in addition to 2.501 meters and also informed that the total length of Groyne has to be reduced to 151 meters instead of 169 meters length.

15. It was further informed that the petitioner has executed 68 metric tones stones and the balance quantity of 42 metric tones have to be executed and as the south-west monsoon is approaching, they were requested to safeguard the already constructed structure before the ensuing south-west monsoon and also informed that they are fully responsible for all risk of loss, damage to work already done as per the clause 12 of the General Conditions of the Contract.

16. The first respondent by a communication dated 16.06.2008, after having found that there is gross delay in completion of the work and in view of the fact that south-west monsoon is likely to start early, requested the petitioner to resume work. This was also reiterated by the second respondent by further communications dated 17.06.2008 and 10.07.2008. The second respondent by a communication dated 28.08.2008, informed the petitioner that extension of time has been granted to the petitioner upto 31.12.2008 and requested them to complete the same within the extended period.

17. As stated by the learned counsel on either side, between the 23.07.2008 to 25.07.2008 on account of high tidal waves, there has been damage to the work executed by the petitioner as well as damaged to the equipment. Parallel steps have been taken for assessing the damage and submitted a claim to the Insurance Company. However, it is to be seen that the Insurance Company has stated that they would not be in a position to assess the quantum payable unless and until the petitioner does the reconstruction of the damaged portion of Groyne. By proceedings of the second respondent dated 27.08.2008, the Insurance Company was informed that due to the heavy sea waves attacking Groyne between 23.07.2008 to 31.07.2008, major portion of the stones has been washed away and scattered and they are not retrievable and the estimate for damaged portion to Rs.66,15,420/- has been forwarded for claiming insurance and requested for release of the claim. In the same letter, the petitioner was requested to rectify the washed away portion in the Groyne as the sea is in calm condition and rectification work may be done before 31.12.2008. Since, the petitioner did not proceed further in the matter, a further communication sent on 24.10.2008 reiterating the earlier direction and directing them to complete the balance work before the expiry of the extended time i.e.31.12.2008. Despite all these communications, since the petitioner had not complied with the directions given, the contract came to be determined by the impugned order.