HJGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH : CORArvl: HON'BLE S.R. NAYAK, CJ, & HQN'BLE SHRI V.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. •¥f ..^ CIVIL N0. APPLICANTS: of Chhattisgam, Through: The Secretary, Public Works Department. DKS Bhawan, Mantraiaya, Raipur, Chhattlsgarh. 2. "^" ";Y The Chlef Engineer Bujidlngs and Roads, Pubjic Works Department, Biiaspur, (CG).. Versus NON'APPLICANT: Nafrvvariai Goyal, Badj, Raigarh, (C-G). r/o. PRESENT: Shri Utkarsh Verma, Dy. Govt. Advocate for the appiicants/ State. ORDER 10th Noveinber, 2006) The foiiowjng orai order of the Court lA'as passed by Vijay Kismar Shrivastava, J. Being aggrisved by the awara' passed by Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran, Raipur In Reference No.89/2005 wherein parties are Nafr»variai Goyal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others w.her©by fhe Tribunaj aiiowed the reforonce and directed both the appiicants to pay an amount of Rs.78,470/- along with interest @ Rs. 12% to non-applicant NatA'aria! Goyal, this revision has been preferred under Sectioh 19 ofthe Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hsnceforth, Chhatci \ Adhiniyam), by the State of Chhattisgarh and Chlef Engsneer who ars applicants hereln. 2) NafrA'arial Goyal - non-appiicant v/as av/arded work of Asphalling of Chapel - Nancleli Road under agreement dated 243/D/1996-97 by the Pufciic Vv'orks Department. After completion of the work contract, final bsii prepared, but the amount of finai biil amounting to RsJ8,470/- not paid by the departmsnt to non-appiicant Natv/arial Goyai in the garb of jettsr dated OS/05/1997 aliegsd to bs issued by non-applicant Natwaral Goyai authorising department to adjust the amount against recovery pending against Shri Shankar Lal Sharma, Toil Tax Contractor and acting on the basis of that Istter the amount payabie to non-applicant Nafrvvariai Goyal has been adjusted. NahvarJai Goyai referred th©disputs by presenting his referencs petition to the Tribunai. Learned Tribunai after necessary enquiry as envisaged under the Act, decided the objection raised by the department regarding iimitation and {iability' to pay. The Tribuna! after due consideration heid that the reference petition is wsl! l«vithintime and ths alieged Jetter dated 06/05/1897 has not bsen provsd to be senf by non-appIJcaRt Nawarlal Goyal or ever it was veriiled from him and the amount payabie to non-applicant NatA'arlai Goya! has been wrongiy adjusted by the department. 3) Learned counsei for ths appiicant^contended that the refsrsnce filed by the non-appiicant Nafr.var LaS Goyal was time barred, as non- applicant Natwar Lal Goyai did not submit hls ciaim jn writing to ths Engineer-in-ChiefwJthin one month from the date of accruaiof such claim. From the award it is ciear that on 12710/1999 non-applicant Nafr»var Lal Goyai sought time for filing ths refersnce before the final authority and oniy after that sinc©the fjnal authority has fasied to take any decisjon in the matter who was moved within three years from the date of accruai of @ the cause of action, therefore, the Tribubal heid that the refersnce is weli within time. 4) Section 7-B of the Act does not prescribe any time IJmit for refemng the matter for the decision to finai suthority. j? appears that according to Ia*<v of jimitation within three years, the claimant Is entitied to pressnt hls refsrence before the authority. Therefore, iearned Tribunai did not err in hoicling the reference to be within limitatlon. 5) Learned counsei for the applican^further contenaed that the jetter dated 06/05/1997 written by non-applicant Natwaria! Goyal for aiiowing the adjustment was adduced before the TribunaJ, but the Tribunal did not appredate it property and passed the award. From the award, it is manjfest that Tribunsj vs"y minutely conssdered the affidavit Ttled by the aepartment and the report of the Executivs Englneer Shri R.K. Diwan 21/05/1988 submitted to the Station House Of^cef and after appreciation of the material on record, heid that neither the ietter was presented by non-applicsnt Natwarlai Goyai nor the sams was personaiiy veriiled by him. Even the report dated 21/05/1988 v/as not proved by any svidence or affidayit. Learned Tribunai rightly heid that the department mlserabjy faiied to prove the document dated 06/05/1997 and wrongiy adjusted the amount payabie to non-applicant. 6) The iast contentjon of learned counsei for the applican^is that the rate of interest is cn higher side. The Tribunai has been authorized to al!ol«v the amount aiong with cost and interest, and it is in his discretion. According to Section 15 ofthe Act, the rate of intersst is to be fixed by the Tribunai as may appear reasonable to it. The rate of snterest I.e., 12% aSIowed by the Tnbuna; does not appear to be unreasonabie and the a'lscretion exercised by t'ne Tribunai in aiiowing the rate of intsrest 12% does not appear to be arbitrary' or iiiegal. Raju 7) In the resuit, the revision being devoid of merit is Jiabje to be dismissed and Is accordingly dismissed in iimine.j Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge