THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER, EAST CENTRAL RAILWAY, AT + P.O. HAJIPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI Vs. AMRITESH KUMAR ROY, S/O SRI BINDESHWAR ROY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Award Debtor-appellants have preferred this appeal under Sec. 37 (1) (b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against the order dated 22.12.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-IV, Patna in Misc. (Arbitration) Appeal No.258 of 2006 by which the appeal has been dismissed.

(2.) The facts of this case, in brief, is that there was a Contract/Agreement No. DRM/W-1/19 dated 3.09.1982 between the Contractor-Respondent and Railway Administration for improvement of 27 units of Type-I quarters and 74 units of Type-II quarters, total 101 quarters at Barauni junction for the face value of Rs.2,94,693.78. The work commenced on 10.09.1982. The work was to be completed within six months from the date of agreement. The time limit was extended from time to time and finally up to 31.10.1986. The payment of work done as per agreement was made by the Railway Administration. Further case of the Contractor-Respondent is that some extra work was also done, but its payment was not made by the Railway Administration.

(3.) The case of the Railway-Appellants is that the agreement is admitted. The contractor was paid Rs.3,21,881.71 against the estimated amount of Rs.2,94,693.78 as mentioned in the agreement, which is more than 9% over and above the agreement value and up-to 10% upward variation is considered normal and the Divisional Authorities have power to sanction variation up-to 25% only. However, the contractor claimed Rs.6,59,783.17 more amount, which is 233% above and over the agreement value, which could not have been sanctioned by the Divisional Authority, rather, sanction from the General Manager for carrying out such extra work was required, which was not granted.