CFA – 34/2008 - Administrator, Raj. State Agriculture Marketing Board & Anr. Vs . Devaki Nandan . : Judgment dt.1.4.08 1/4 S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.34/2008 Administrator, Raj. State Agriculture marketing Board & Anr. Vs. Devaki Nandan. Date or judgment : 01st April, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI Mr. Vijay Bishnoi for the appellant. Miss Rekha Borana for the respondent. --------- 1. Heard leaned counsels. 2. In this appeal, the only grievance raised against the impugned judgment of the learned trial court dated 31.10.2007 is the payment of interest on the amount of price escalation of Rs.8,14,725/- decreed against the appellant-defendant, Rajasthan Agricultural Marketing Board. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant Mr. Vijay Bishnoi has urged that since the final bill for the said price escalation was corrected and furnished by the plaintiff-contractor on 5.3.2005 only, the learned trial court ought to have awarded interest for the period CFA – 34/2008 - Administrator, Raj. State Agriculture Marketing Board & Anr. Vs . Devaki Nandan . : Judgment dt.1.4.08 2/4 commencing from 5.3.2005 instead of 14.5.2004 to 17.7.2006. The learned trial court has awarded interest at the rate of 7% per annum on the said amount of Rs.8,14,725/- for the period 14.5.2004 to 17.7.2006. The appellant-defendants are contesting the levy of interest for the aforesaid period of approximately 2 years only and the amount of price escalation is however not disputed. 4. On the side opposite, Miss Rekha Borana, learned counsel for the respondent has urged that the date of commencement of interest from 14.5.2004 is not unjustified because on the said date the plaintiff gave a notice to the defendant for the demand of interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the price escalation which was agreed to be given as per clause 45 of the Contract. She has further submitted that as a matter of fact, the work in question was completed by the plaintiff for the defendant in the year 2002 and the plaintiff did not demand any interest for the period of approximately 2 years after completion of work though price escalation was required to be paid for the period after completion of work in question. 5. I have perused the impugned order and heard leaned CFA – 34/2008 - Administrator, Raj. State Agriculture Marketing Board & Anr. Vs . Devaki Nandan . : Judgment dt.1.4.08 3/4 counsels. 6. The learned trial court has noted all the relevant dates and facts in para 3 of the impugned judgment. The bill of price escalation of Rs.8,15,972/- was submitted by the plaintiff initially on 14.5.2004 along with the notice demanding interest. However, upon some clerical error pointed out by the defendant, the correct amount was computed by the departmental authorities only at Rs.8,14,725/- and the same was forwarded to the Head Office at Jaipur with letter of Superintending Engineer, Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board, Sri Ganganagar on 5.5.2005 and thereafter again reminders were sent for payment of price escalation on 14.5.2005 and 16.8.2005. This clearly shows that the plaintiff had claimed interest only after serving notice upon the defendant at the rate of 18% per annum. Merely because after some clerical error was found and corrected by the departmental authorities, the said amount of bill was reduced from Rs.8,15,972/- to Rs.8,14,725/- and the same was forwarded to the head office with recommendation to pay such price escalation on 14.5.2005, it cannot be contended that the interest on such delayed payment of price escalation would be payable only for CFA – 34/2008 - Administrator, Raj. State Agriculture Marketing Board & Anr. Vs . Devaki Nandan . : Judgment dt.1.4.08 4/4 14.5.2005. As a matter of fact, the interest being the compensation for delay in payment of said contract money could have been demanded after completion of work itself. Be that as it may, since the plaintiff himself has claimed the said amount only from the date when a notice for this purpose was served upon the defendant after a gap of more than 2 years from the completion and the work in question, this Court finds no error in the impugned judgment of the learned trial court awarding such interest from the date of the notice i.e. 14.5.2004 till 17.7.2006. 7. This being the only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant and the same having been negatived, this Court finds no error in the impugned judgment and the appeal is found to be devoid of merit. The same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. [ DR. VINEET KOTHARI ], J. item No.22 babulal/-