M.P. HOUSING BOARD Vs. KHAILDAS CONSTRUCTIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision has been preferred by the M.P. Housing Board aggrieved by award dated 16 -3 -2000 passed in Reference Case No. 16/98 by the M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal allowing the claim preferred by the respondents to the extent of Rs. 1,58,755/ - along with the proportionate cost and the interest @ 12% per annum on Rs, 1,09,429/ - from 5 -3 -1998 till the date of realization.

(2.) THE respondent M/s Khaildas Constructions preferred claim before M.P. Arbitration Tribunal, Bhopal under section 7 of M.P. Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as Adhiniyam). Respondent entered into a contract with M.P. Housing Board on 27 -3 -1992 with respect to work of external electrification at 60 acres of land situated at Satlapur, Mandideep vide agreement No. 62/Dn.3 of 92 -93. NIT was issued on 10 -1 -1992, offer was accepted on 23 -6 -1992, original amount of contract work was 61,41,907/ -. Work order was issued on 28 -3 -1992. Period of completion was 6 months from the date of work order i.e. by 27 -9 -1992. After grant of extension work was completed on 6 -12 -1993. Total cost of work as per final bill, done by the M.P. Housing Board was 81,59,956/ -. It is further mentioned in Para -16 of the reference petition that work was completed on 6 -12 -1993 while final bill was paid in two parts on 2 -11 -1994 and 4 -3 -1995. Petitioner claimed a sum of Rs. 5,23,017/ - on account of escalation of cost for the work done. The claim made was of Rs. 4,29,898/ -, loss on account of wrongly applying the condition of 1% rebate Rs. 12,303 and interest on delayed payment of final bill Rs. 80,816/ -. In Para -22 following amendments have been made : - 22. The above claims were first preferred before the Executive Engineer on 15 -5 -1995 who forwarded them to the Dy. Housing Commissioner for decision in terms of clause 29 of the agreement (Annexure A -38). Rejection of claims by the said Dy. Housing Commissioner an appeal was preferred to the Additional Housing Commissioner, M.P. Housing Board, Bhopal on 8 -1 -1996 (Annexure A -39 and A -40) which too was rejected by him even without hearing the petitioner. (Annexure A -41). Again an attempt was made by appealing to the Dy. Housing Commissioner H. B. Bhopal Vide No. 858/97 dated 26 -9 -1997 (Annexure A -51) because the rejection of the claim in letter dt. 24 -12 -1996 (Annexure A -39) was signed by the Accounts officer of his office and thus was not a speaking order to afford him opportunity to confirm that the rejection was within his competence under clause 29 of agreement. A copy of this reference was also sent to the Additional Housing Commissioner who is the highest authority to decide the claim under clause 29 of the agreement. (Annexure A -41). However, it too was rejected by the Additional Commissioner Housing Board, Bhopal vide letter No. 7424 dt. 11 -7 -1997. (Annexure A -49). This reference petition is thus being made within 12 months from the date of rejection of the claim by the final authority laid down in the agreement and as such is within the limitation period prescribed in section 7 -B(l)(a) of Madhya Pradesh Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983. This tribunal has exclusive territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the claim. Actually quantified claims were submitted on 1 -9 -1997 to Dy. Housing Commissioner by Anx A -50 and no decision on these claims had been given by the authority. This claim petition is presented after waiting six months for the decision and is within limitation.

(3.) THE Arbitration Tribunal has held the application to be within time. The quantified claim was submitted on 1 -9 -1997. Limitation under section 7 -B(l)(a) started from 1 -9 -1997, thus it was open to file application before the Tribunal within 18 months from the date of reference to the final authority. The aforesaid amount has been awarded under the head of escalation. Dissatisfied thereby the revision has been preferred by the M.P. Housing Board. 2006 (2) MPLJ 113 and Ravikant Bansal v. M.P. Audyogik Kendra Vikas Nigam (Gwalior) Ltd., 2006 (2) MPU 299. He has also submitted that on merits, escalation awarded was over and above the terms and condition mentioned in the contract, thus the amount awarded by the Tribunal is without jurisdiction. 6. First we take up for consideration question with respect to limitation. Section 7 -B was inserted by M.P. Act No. 9/1990 w.e.f. 24 -4 -1990, it was substituted by M.P. Act No. 36/1995 w.e.f. 15 -12 -1995. Section 7 -B as it was inserted in 1990 read thus : 7 -B. Limitation. - (1) The Tribunal shall not admit a reference -