THE TOWN PANCHAYAT OF ARIYALUR BY ITS EXECUTIVE OFFICER, HAVING, OFFICE AT PANCHAYAT, OFFICE, ARIYALUR THIRUCHIRAPALLI DISTRICT Vs. R. PARAMASIVAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendant in O.S.No.2 of 1981 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur is the appellant in the above appeal. The case of the plaintiff/respondent herein is briefly stated hereunder: - The plaintiff is a contractor at Ariyalur. The defendant Town Panchayat prepared an estimate for the construction of bus stand. The estimate was prepared on the basis of Basic Standard Rates prevailing in 1970 and the contract value was Rs.1,10,500/ -. The plaintiff submitted his tender at 19.77 per cent over and above the contract value i.e., at Rs.1,32,151.50. His tender was accepted and the contract was entered into between the parties on 15.6.74. As per the terms, the work has to be completed by 15.12.1974. It is also contended that there are special conditions attached to the contract, namely, cement and steel would be supplied departmentally at site for which the department will deduct certain amount named in the contract. Though the plaintiff was given the agreement, the plans were not handed over to him. He addressed the Assistant Engineer, Highways and Rural Works and also the Divisional Engineer. Highways and Rural works at Tiruchirapalli for the plans. He wrote several letters to both of them and also to the Executive Officer of the defendant panchayat on 17.7.74. He also requested them to supply cement and steel rods as per the agreement. The Divisional Engineer, Tiruchirapalli replied him that they would give only the technical advice as and when necessary. On 16.9.74 the plaintiff wrote a letter to the defendant that the price of raw materials had increased along with labour charges due to taxes levied and, therefore, his tender rate must correspondingly be increased. For the work, not mentioned in the agreement, he must be given extra rates according to the Basic Standard Schedule Rates then prevailing plus percentage mentioned in his tender. He had also requested the defendant to supply the basic materials to complete the work as per the programme. By his letter dated 26.7.74, he had informed the defendant that due to lack of supply of cement and steel rods, work had come to a standstill, He had also addressed the Collector and various other officers, and also made representation to the Minister also.

(2.) It is further contended that considering the request of the plaintiff, the defendant Panchayat passed a Resolution on 11.4.75 revising the rates mentioned in the agreement and expressing to give middle rate and asking the plaintiff to continue and complete the work. The plaintiff received the materials and was prepared to abide by the resolution of the Panchayat for the middle rate and completed the construction in the last week of October, 1975 and the bus stand was opened on 14.11.75. The Basic Schedule Rates of works for preparation of estimates was increased by 37 - /2% by the Government on 1.11.73 and it was increased by another 7 -1/2% with effect from 1.4.74. Again it was increased by 17 -1/2% from 1.4.75. The estimate for the work was prepared with reference to the Basic Standard Schedule Rates prior to 1.11.73. Hence when the Panchayat decided to pay at the middle rate, thereby meaning the rate prevailing in the year 1974 -75, the plaintiff had accepted the same. In that case, the plaintiff will be entitled to claim 25.23% i.e., 45% minus 19.77 above the estimated rate. The plaintiff is entitled to the interest for the balance amount. Since the amount as claimed by him has not been settled in spite of repeated demands, he has filed the above suit.

(3.) The defendant filed a written statement wherein it is contended that the agreement entered into between the parties on 15.6.74 governs the rights of the parties in respect of the work done and as such, any claim apart from and de hors the same, the plaintiff cannot lay any claim in a court of law. The agreement expressly refers that the percentage of the tender is only 19.77% above the estimated rate. Hence the plaintiff's claim for higher rate on any basis whatsoever is untenable. The plaintiff's reliance on a resolution for the increased rate passed by the panchayat cannot help him in any way. It is not binding on technical authorities who are to decide the rates as per the rules. Regarding the claim for Rs.11,286.63 for the extra work done, the new items of works are not covered by the original agreement and therefore, they are governed by the provisions in para 104 and 105 of the Madras Highways Manual. Regarding the supply of cement and steel the delay on the part of the defendant is neither wanton nor wilful. Even if it is admitted that the plaintiff incurred loss due to delay in the supply of basic materials, the defendant cannot be fastened with liability in any way for the same. The claim for interest is not maintainable. The delay in the settlement was due to the attitude of the plaintiff. As regards the last claim of earnest money deposit, it was paid on 29.8.77.