THE UNION OF INDIA, REP., BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, PARK TOWN, CHENNAI Vs. M/S. COMPLEX PILE FOUNDATIONS, REP., BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR, MR. K. RAMACHANDRAN, PRESENTLY HAVING OFFICE AT NO. 19/10, THALAMUTHU STREET, ANNAI ANJUGAM NAGAR, GKM COLONY, CHENNAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the Railway Administration challenging the award passed by the Honourable Arbitrator, dated 30.07.2009, in the matter of dispute between the first respondent and the Railway Administration arising out of an agreement, dated 10.10.2002.

(2.) The third petitioner called for tenders for the work of "Perambur Repair works in fitter House Tank C-1 to C-4 (4 Nos.)" situated at Filter House located opposite to ICF Higher Secondary School, Ayanavaram. The 1st respondent participated in the said tender and was the lowest bidder. After due negotiations held on 15.07.2002, the petitioners issued the letter of Acceptance dated 18.07.2002 in favour of the first respondent for a total value of Rs.20,35,080.00.

(3.) The first respondent was allotted the work and the offer quoted by the first respondent at Rs.20,35,080.00 was accepted. Agreement between the parties was entered into was 10.10.2002. The period for completion of the work was four months that is from 18.07.2002 to 17.11.2002. The contract involved repair of four steel tanks and according to the contract, the work should be over by 17.11.2002 and according to the petitioners, there was great delay in completion of the work, the first respondent failed to furnish the monthly bills and sign the same after due approval of the concerned authorities, did not complete all formalities as required under clause 43(i) of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC) and insisted upon refund of the Earnest Money Deposit (EMD) and Security Deposit (SD) without complying with the conditions in the GCC. It is further submitted that the petitioners had extended the contract several times, only at the instance of the contractor and all the requirements of the contractor were met. The contractor is required to inspect the site in terms of clause (7) of the Special Conditions of Contract (SCC) and acquaint himself with the conditions and other factors before quoting the rates and subsequently cannot complain about the same. On account of disputes, the matter was referred for arbitration wherein, the first respondent made a claim for Rs.36,75,800.00. The claims made by the first respondent in the claim statement dated 11.09.2006, can be broadly summarised as follows:-