Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

25. The learned Arbitrator, on a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, particularly Exs.C-150, 151, 157 and 158, concluded that the appellant/National Highways did not hand over the site free from all encumbrances. These documents issued by the Divisional Engineer and Superintending Engineer of the National Highways, constituted binding admissions from which the appellant could not resile. The Tribunal probed into each one of the documents where the appellant/National Highways have unambiguously admitted the delay caused in handing over the site(s). The learned Arbitrator, while answering Issue No.2, has deeply analysed http://www.judis.nic.in O.S.A.Nos.197 & 198 of 2019 Ex.C-151, wherein, in the Minutes of the meeting dated 05.12.2011 between the Chief Engineer, Superintending Engineer, Divisional Engineer and the contractor, it had been admitted that there was a delay on account of the aforesaid factors. In the Minutes of the meeting, it was clearly recorded that "after verification of the above facts with the department officials, it is ascertained that there was a delay in shifting of EB posts, transformers and removal of living trees as mentioned by the contractor." By referring to this admission, under Ex.C-151, the learned Arbitrator has concluded in paragraph No.98 of the award in Claim Petition No.62 of 2015 that the site was handed over to the contractor only during the fag end of the completion of the agreement period, and therefore, the contractor requested for extension of time upto 31.03.2012 for completing the works. Further, in paragraph No.99, the learned Arbitrator has held that, all the parts of the site(s) without hindrance for widening the road, were not handed over to the contractor at the time of commencement of work and only in April 2011, the hindrances were removed. Therefore, in the light of the admission on the part of the Department, the learned Arbitrator has held that the delay is largely attributable on the part of the Department. Further, based on Ex.C- http://www.judis.nic.in O.S.A.Nos.197 & 198 of 2019 151, the learned Arbitrator held that there was a breach of Clause 21.1 of the Conditions of Contract and the appellant/National Highways was responsible for the delay of 567 days in completing the work. In fact, the contractor had given 13 letters during the subsistence of the contract. In those letters, the respondent-claimant requested the appellant-National Highways to compute the revised rates, but it was not done as mandated under Clause 32 of the Conditions of Contract. Therefore, the learned Arbitrator has held that the contractor cannot be denied the benefit of Compensation Events under Clause 44 of the Conditions of Contract. Thus, the learned counsel for the respondent/claimant submitted that the learned Arbitrator has rightly passed an award , which was also challenged before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge had dismissed the Original Petition by confirming the award of the arbitrator.