Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"21. The contractor before tendering must satisfy himself as to the natural features of the ground, the quantity of work and material necessary for the entire completion of the contract and the means of access to the work or other accommodation as may be required and no claim on the ground of ignorance of any such detail shall be entertained at any time". (emphasis supplied).

"41. In the event of any damage occurring of any work included in the contract through settlement of ground, slips, flooding, or any other cause whatever due to negligence on the part of the contractor or not, the contractor will be solely responsible and must re- construct, repair and make good any such damaged work at his own expenses".

Percentage rates quoted by Tenderer will be deemed to have covered expenses for such dewatering works/measures. Such temporary works shall not be removed without the approval of the Engineer-in- charge. It shall be further noted that disposal of surface/sub-soil water away from the site into some existing drain/nallah shall be done by Contractor at his own cost. No claim in this regard shall be entertained. 3.3 Notwithstanding any approval by the Engineer- in-charge of the Contractor's arrangements for the exclusion of water, the Contractor shall be responsible for the sufficiency thereof and for keeping the works safe at all times, particularly during any floods and for making good at his own expense any damage to the works including any that may be attributable to floods. Any loss of production or additional costs of any kind that my result from floods shall be at the Contractor's own risk.

58. Under clause 41 of the general conditions, it was clearly provided that in the event of any damage occurring to any work included in the contract, inter alia, through flooding, or any other cause whatever, due to negligence on the part of the contractor, or even otherwise, the contractor would be solely responsible "and must reconstruct, repair and make good any such damaged work at his own expenses."

59. Under clause 3.1 of the special conditions, it was the obligation of the contractor to keep the works well drained until the Engineer in Charge certifies that the whole of the works is substantially complete and shall ensure all work is carried out under dry conditions. Excavated areas were required to be kept well drained and free from standing water.

62. Under clause 15 of Special Conditions, it was the obligation of the contractor to remove the sub soil water and nothing extra was payable to the contractor for carrying out the operation of dewatering. It was the obligation of the contractor to maintain safety of the structure against floatation.

63. In the face of the aforesaid clauses of the contract between the parties It cannot be appreciated as to how the learned arbitrator came to the conclusion that the general conditions were not attracted merely because the flooding of the work site due to rain/surface run was a post tender development. The tender/contract conditions show that the parties were well aware of the possibility that such like developments may arise. It is for this reason that the contract specifically provided that in the event of any damage occurring to any work included in the contract, inter alia, due to flooding or due to negligence on the part of the contract, or otherwise, the contractor shall be solely responsible and must reconstruct, repair and make good any such damage to the work at his own expense. The logic advanced by the respondent and accepted by the learned arbitrator defies common sense. Obviously, the contract was not awarded after the event of flooding had already taken place. It was a post tender/post contract development. However, the parties had expressly agreed that if such an eventuality arises, it shall be the obligation of the contractor to deal with the same and that no extra amount shall be payable by the petitioner for dealing with the situation or remedying the damage that may result to the work in question. This aspect was repeatedly emphasized in more ways than one as is evident from the contractual clauses, presumably for the reason that the work was to be done at a subsoil level.