Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This order shall also govern disposal of Civil Revision Nos. 568, 569, 570, 571, 572 and 573 of 1996 (M/s. Narmada Construction Company, Khalghath v. Ujjain Nagar Palika Nigam, Ujjain and 2 others) as all these Civil Revisions have been preferred against the common Award dated 31-1-1996 passed by M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal in Reference Case Nos. 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220 and 221 of 1991.

2. The long and short facts involved in these reference petitions are that the petitioner Company filed aforesaid seven reference petitions before the Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal for claiming an award for Rs. 3,29,000.00; Rs. 6,70,049.00; Rs. 2,63,103.00; Rs. 3,90,000.00; Rs. 92,369.00; Rs. 1,71,819.00 and Rs. 2,16,096.00 respectively against Ujjain Nagar Palika Nigam, Ujjain for infructuous overheads; loss of profit; refund of earnest money and ante-lite interest/The terms and conditions of the contracts, the circumstances and the facts of all these seven cases are identical, except for numbering of the exhibited documents. It is not in dispute before us that the entire evidence in all these seven cases is the same and, therefore, the Tribunal had discussed the evidence only in Reference Case No. 215 of 1991.

4. In the written statement the defence of the respondents was that the petitioner was not entitled for any damages, on account of loss of profit as well as infructuous overheads and their further submission was that the respondents/Corporation has not committed any breach of contract as in the meeting dated 25-4-1991 the petitioner himself had agreed for extension of time and on the basis of which a Resolution No. 306 was passed on 7-5-1991 by the Administrator and thereafter on 16-5-1991 intimation was given to the petitioner and even after agreeing for completing the work after 25-4-1991 despite the repeated reminders and letters by the respondents/Corporation, the petitioner did not turn up for starting work. This position was also admitted by the petitioner that the contract work for asphalting could not commence in the rainy season as the same was not feasible and possible. Therefore, the petitioner did not commence the work and has not completed the same but claimed 10% amount of the contractual amounts towards the loss of overheads and 10% towards loss of profit as the respondents have committed breach of contract by not delivering the agreemented roads for asphalting work to the petitioner till after the expiry of stipulated period and even thereafter.

13. The Tribunal after critically examining the evidence on record, recorded the following finding in Para 20 of the award that-

"No evidence was adduced by the petitioners to show that they had employed any supervisory staff or security personnel or erected any huts or any office at the site. In other words, the entire evidence shows that the petitioners incurred, if at all, only negligible expenses towards on-site overheads."

It has been further held in Para 21 of the award that-

"There is no evidence in the present case showing volume of Head Office overheads, which the petitioners might have incurred, which may properly be apportionable to the 7 contracts under consideration. It is not known how much big office or offices the petitioners maintain and the volume of expenditure they have to incur in maintaining them. Considering, however, the fact that the petitioners are A-4 class contractors, we can hazard a guess that they must have incurred 1% of the admissible overhead expenses towards Head Office expenses. Accordingly, we award to the petitioners 1% of the prime cost of the works, excluding cost of bitumen which was to be supplied by the respondents under the contract, in each case towards loss on account of infructuous overhead expenses."

17. After considering documentary evidence available on record, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has even wrongly awarded nominal damages towards loss of overheads as well as towards loss of profit at the rate of 1% because as per the Tribunal's own finding, the petitioners could not prove his case either for establishment of any office at site for claiming infructuous overheads or loss of profit simply on account of non-availability of site. Consequently, no case was made out even to award nominal damages when the contractor was busy in other work, and later on he failed to execute the contract even after availability of site and grant of escalation, in no case the petitioner was entitled to claim any damages for loss of profit. Thus, according to us, looking to the evidence on record, the petitioners were not entitled for claiming any amount towards loss of profit. The petitioners have not submitted any calculations or documents before the Tribunal to prove anticipated profits that how they would have earned profit out of these 7 contracts after incurring cost of labour, material and supervision. In such circumstances, we hold that the Tribunal has wrongly awarded even nominal damages towards infructuous overheads and towards loss of profits. Though by giving reasonings the Tribunal had itself rejected the case of the petitioners for awarding higher percentage of damages in both the aforesaid heads. Since the respondents/Corporation has not challenged the award, the award cannot be set-aside because this is a revision for enhancement of compensation. Therefore, under a judicial discipline the amount awarded by the Tribunal, if not challenged in any manner, the same cannot be reduced. Under these facts and circumstances of the case and looking to the evidentiary material available on record, we do not find that the petitioners could prove any case for awarding more damages either towards loss of infructuous overheads or under the head of loss of profit.