Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(5) For that, the claimant having submitted no claim certificate several times during the course of execution of work for grant of extension of time, the claim on the said account is misconceived. The Learned Committee of Arbitrators have utterly failed to appreciate the said aspect of the matter and the award is therefore vitiated.

The first ground as mentioned above was not argued by the Learned Counsel for the appellant and accordingly the said ground need not be answered. The most important grounds are ground No. 3 to 5 wherein it is stated that the respondent having given written undertaking not to claim any compensation of damages for extension of time to complete work, the Committee of Arbitrators could not have allowed any claim in respect of the said items. This ground relates to claim item No. 4. Under the aforesaid claim the respondent had prayed for compensation of Rs. 7,51,28,828/- towards extra cost incurred for the extended stay. The Committee of Arbitrators awarded a sum of Rs. 3,34,37,168/- in respect of the aforesaid claim. The Committee of Arbitrators after consideration of the documents placed before it observed that what clinches the issue is the fact that neither did the Engineer nor the consultant hold the claimant responsible for any part of the delay, nor did the appellants differ with this position at any time and insist on imposition of Liquidated Damages on the claimant-respondent. The Committee of Arbitrators also observed that in terms of the FIDIC conditions the Appellants would be liable for delay only under certain clauses. In interpreting Clause 42.2 (relating to delay in giving possession of side), it observed that the disturbance to the benchmarks and intersection points, and the consequent delay is sufficiently akin to delay in handing over of site so as to impose a similar liability on the appellants. On consideration of the documents, it further observed that the total length of extension finally taken by the claimants in 155 days and out of that it determined 82 days of delay to impose such liability, the remaining being chargeable to rain, bandhs, agitations etc. Accordingly for the delay of 82 days relating to giving possession of site for different reasons the Committee awarded a sum of Rs. 3,34,37,168.00. The only ground taken by the appellants in this regard is that time extension was granted on the undertaking by the claimant-respondent that they would not seek for compensation for the delay. In this respect as observed by the Committee of Arbitrators reference may be made to Clause 42.2 of the Agreement. The said clause provides as follows :