State of Kerala Vs. P.S.Thulasi Bai - Court Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.UBAID MONDAY, THE20H DAY OF JANUARY201430TH POUSHA, 1935 RFA.No. 499 of 2004 (B) ------------------------ AGAINST THE ORDER

/JUDGMENT

IN OS14141994 of PRL.SUB COURT,TRIVANDRUM DATED3007-2003 APPELLANT(S)/APPELLANT/DEFENDANTS IN O.S:: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REP. BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVT.SECRETARIAT THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.

2. THE SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER, ROADS & BRIDGES (SOUTH CIRCLE) PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY SR.GOVERNMENT PLEADER NOBLE MATHEW RESPONDENT(S)/PLAINTIFF IN O.S:: ----------------------------------------- P.S.THULASI BAI, D/O. SARADA, AGED47 PADINJATTATHIL HOUSE, PERUMGUZHI P.O. CHIRAYINKIL TALUK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.MILLU DANDAPANI THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON2001-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & P.UBAID, JJ.

------------------------- R.F.A No.499 of 2004 -------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2014

JUDGMENT

Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J.

Heard learned Senior Government Pleader and learned counsel for the respondent, a contractor.

2. The respondent was awarded a contract for widening of a road. The tender was submitted on 3.02.1987 and agreement was entered into between the parties on 19.02.1987. 1986 P.W.D schedule of rates was the basis of the preparation of probable amount of contract. The court below found that for varied reasons, the work which had to be completed by 9.2.1989, was ultimately completed in 1993. In the meanwhile, 1990 P.W.D. Rates came into force. That reflected an enhancement of rates 40% over the 1986 rates. The court below granted such enhancement since the work was ultimately completed in 1993.

3. Though the learned Senior Government Pleader argued that the delay is not attributable to the Government R.F.A No.499 of 2004 2 or its officials, it needs to be noted that the work was ultimately completed to the satisfaction of the supervising authority and the work was permitted to continue without it being terminated. This means that the Government were within authority to invoke the penalty clauses and impose fines etc. If that was not done, it has to be taken that the period for carrying out the work, which is essentially a civil contract, was extended from time to time, including by submitting supplemental agreements. Therefore, the court below had applied a reasonable yardstick based on 1990 schedule of rates when the work was ultimately completed in 1993. In this view of the matter, we do not find any error of appreciation on relevant facts and material evidence and that the court below had also taken the view that the materials disclosed that the plaintiff is entitled to such decree. This is only to be allowed.

4. However, we see that having applied the principles relating to the grant of value for the work done and having fixed the value on the enhanced rates on the basis of P.W.D. Schedule, it was not justifiable to exercise R.F.A No.499 of 2004 3 discretion under Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure as has been done as regards grant of interest. The court below ought to have confined the grant of interest to 6% from the date of suit till recovery, without granting any pre-suit interest. In the result, this appeal is allowed vacating the grant of interest from 23.8.1993 and modifying the rate of interest and ordering hereby that the plaintiff-respondent herein will be entitled to an amount of 13,68,763/- at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of suit till date of payment or recovery whichever is earlier. No costs for this appeal. Costs in the suit awarded to the plaintiff by the court below will be proportionate to the reliefs due to him as per this modified decree. Sd/- THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE Sd/- P.UBAID JUDGE ma R.F.A No.499 of 2004 4 R.F.A No.499 of 2004 5