H.P. HOUSING BOARD Vs. RAJEEV BROS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment, decree dated 30.3.2G02 passed by learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala, in Civil Suit No. 5 D/I/1999 dismissing the suit of the appellant for recovery of Rs. 3,32,135 along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that appellant had invited tender for the construction of Houses under Partial Self Financing Scheme at Bindraban, Palampur. The respondent submitted tender and after negotiations the work amounting to Rs. 33,21,848.88 was awarded to respondent. The respondent entered into an agreement No. 19 of 1993 94 on 17.7.1993 with the appellant for completion of the said work. As per Clause 2 of the agreement, if the contractor fails to complete the work within stipulated period in that event he will be liable to pay compensation up to 10% of the awarded amount to the department. The time limit for the execution of work was fixed two years which was accepted by the respondent. Necessary store items were supplied to the respondent from time to time. The awarded work was required to be completed on or before 31.7.1995. The respondent executed the work very slowly. Notices dated 30.8.1993, 22.9.1993, 10.4.1993, 19.10.1993, 2.11.1993, 4.2.1994, 22.4.1994, 18.6.1994 and 27.7.1994 were issued to respondent to expedite the execution of the work. The appellant had correspondence with its senior officers i.e. Superintending Engineer to this effect and the Superintending Engineer authorized the appellant vide letter dated 10.5.1994 to take action against the respondent under Clause 2 of the agreement.

(3.) THE suit was contested by respondent by filing written statement in which preliminary objection of maintainability of the suit in view of arbitration clause between the parties was taken. The pleas of jurisdiction, limitation, res judicata, non joinder of necessary parties, estoppel and the suit being false and vexatious have also been taken. On merits, it has been submitted that store items were never supplied by appellant to respondent as per demand and the supplies were always delayed. The execution of work was delayed due to non co operative attitude of Executive Engineer who never supplied store items in time. The respondent suffered financial loss due to non supply of essential items resulting in retaining the labour without work for months together. Notices allegedly issued by appellant to the respondent were denied. It has been asserted that not even a single notice was received by the respondent. The complete site was not handed over while giving lay out of the site plan. The respondent did not violate Clause 2 or any other Clause of the agreement. The entire fault for delay lies with the appellant. The Superintending Engineer did not afford any opportunity to the respondent before the imposition of the compensation. The appellant earlier proceeded against the respondent and started arbitration proceedings in respect of all claims against the respondent and the learned Arbitrator has already given the award in favour of the respondent to the tune of Rs. 6,445. The suit is, thus, not maintainable.