THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO C.R.P.No.1366 of 2002 and C.M.A.No.1693 of 2002 Date: 03-02-2010 C.R.P.No.1366 of 2002: Between The Superintending Engineer, Nagarjuna Sagar Left Canals, Nuzvid, Krishna district and another … Petitioners and P.Mastan Rao, Contractor (died) and 7 others (Respondents 6 to 8 are not necessary parties) … Respondents C.M.A.No.1693 of 2002: Between The Superintending Engineer, NSC Circle, Nuzvid, Krishna district and another … Appellants and P.Mastan Rao, Contractor (died) and 7 others (Respondents 2 to 4 are not necessary parties) … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO C.R.P.No.1366 of 2002 and C.M.A.No.1693 of 2002 Common Judgment: (per Nooty Ramamohana Rao, J.) Both these matters are clubbed together and heard as they arise out of the common judgment and decrees, dated 04-10-2001, in O.S.No.7 of 1992 and O.P.No.106 of 1992, respectively, on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Nuzvid, Krishna district. 2. The facts, which are relevant, are these: Earth work excavation and forming of embankment from KM 0.000 to KM 2.000 of Vempadu Major (Upper Reach) including construction of structures in Block No.21/11, Nagarjuna Sagar Left Canals was entrusted to respondent No.1 (Contractor) for execution. An agreement has been entered into in that regard on 29-4-1982. The period provided for completion of the work was 14 months and the total value of the work was estimated at Rs.7,00,633/-. The Contractor executed only a portion of the work during the original period of currency and sought for extension of time for execution of the balance work up to 31-3-1984, which was accordingly granted. Time for execution was kept on being solicited by the Contractor and was granted right up to 31-3-1987. The Contractor invoked the provision contained in the contract for resolution of the disputes that have cropped up between him and the State Government in the matter of execution of this work and solicited the disputes to be referred to an Arbitrator. The matter was contested before a panel of Arbitrators. Out of 7 claims, claim No.1 in a sum of Rs.3,15,300/-, claim No.2 in a sum of Rs.2,38,468/-, claim No.3 in a sum of Rs.25,000/- and claim No.5 in a sum of Rs.5,000/- were totally rejected by the learned Arbitrators. All the balance 3 claims, claim No.4 related to increase in the quantity of work, for which a sum of Rs.1,31,664/- has been claimed under the head of excavation of hard rock, however the learned Arbitrators have allowed a part of this claim in a sum of Rs.61,390/-. On the head of loss of business turnover and interest due to delay of one year in payment of the final bill, the Contractor was awarded payment of interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum for the period from 10-12-1987 to 28-3-1988, which is for less than 4 months. Insofar as claim No.7 is concerned, which related to release of with-held amount of Rs.27,586=80 ps., a sum of Rs.24,915/- was ordered to be refunded to the Contractor with interest at 15 per cent per annum. O.P.No.106 of 1992 has been instituted by the Contractor seeking the award passed by the learned Arbitrators dated 29-5-1991 to be made rule of the court, while the State Government has preferred civil suit O.S.No.7 of 1992 seeking to set aside the award passed by the learned Arbitrators. Both O.S.No.7 of 1992 and O.P.No.106 of 1992 have been clubbed together, heard and decided by the learned Senior Civil Judge by the common judgment and decrees dated 04-10-2001. Thus, against the judgment and decree rendered in O.S.No.7 of 1992 appeal in C.M.A.No.1693 of 2002 has been preferred by the State Government and to the extent that the award has been rendered rule of the court in O.P.No.106 of 1992, C.R.P.No.1366 of 2002 has also been preferred by the State Government. 3. The learned Government Pleader strenuously contended that the award of the learned Arbitrators is wholly unsustainable and in spite of the evidence that has been marshalled before the learned Senior Civil Judge, the same has not been properly appreciated resulting in an error in the common judgment rendered by the learned Senior Civil Judge. 4. We are constrained not to deal with the various contentions strenuously urged before us by the learned Government Pleader and sought to be countered by the learned Counsel appearing for legal representatives of the deceased Contractor, for in our judgment the claims which have been allowed by the learned Arbitrators are so marginally low that the entire dispute is an absolute triviality. 5. A sum of Rs.61,390/- has been awarded as part of claim No.4 made by the Contractor. This amount has been awarded by the learned Arbitrators initially duly taking into account and consideration the excavation of hard rock carried out by the Contractor while executing the work. The material that has been brought before the learned Arbitrators was undoubtedly of the nature requiring them to consider the same. Therefore, awarding a sum of Rs.61,390/- for the excavation of hard rock undertaken by the Contractor cannot be described as too unreasonable amount awarded by the learned Arbitrators requiring any correction of such an award. 6. The next claim, which was allowed by the learned Arbitrators, was by way of awarding interest at the rate of 15 per cent per annum for the period from 10-12-1987 to 28-3-1988, which is less than 4 months. 7. The next claim, which is allowed is -- as against a sum of Rs.27,586=80 ps., which has been with-held from the payments liable to be made to the Contractor, only a sum of Rs.24,915/- was ordered by the learned Arbitrators to be refunded to the Contractor together with interest at 15 per cent per annum. 8. The learned Senior Civil Judge has considered the entire material and found that the learned Arbitrators are justified in allowing the aforementioned claims. He has not found any justification behind the claim made in the suit requiring the award to be set aside. 9. As was already noticed supra, the criticism mounted by the learned Government Pleader against the award passed which was made rule of the court by the civil court was this: That awarding an amount of Rs.61,390/- towards excavation of hard rock is improper for the said work is forming part of the work required to be executed by the Contractor. 10. We refrain to express any opinion on this matter, for, the amount involved in being less than Rs.62,000/-, is too trivial. 11. Similarly, the contention canvassed by the learned Government Pleader that awarding interest at 15 per cent per annum is on the higher side also does not merit consideration at our hands, for the period for which interest awarded was less than 4 months and hence it will not make any substantial difference. 12. The last claim related to refund of the amounts, which have been with-held, and it was found by the learned Arbitrators as well as by the learned Senior Civil Judge that a sum of Rs.24,915/-, which ought not to have been with-held from the bills of the Contractor, has been with-held. Therefore, the learned Arbitrators as well as the civil court have directed this money to be refunded to the Contractor. We do not propose to re-examine this matter because the amount involved even on this count is less than Rs.25,000/-. Further, the award was passed on 29-5-1991 and that has been made rule of the court as on 04-10-2001 and nearly after 19 years, we do not propose to re-examine the entire material on its merits. 13. We are dismissing the above C.M.A., and C.R.P., only on the ground that the amount involved in the entire matter being too low and too trivial warranting our interference. 14. In the result, both the C.R.P., and the C.M.A., are dismissed, but, however, without costs. ______________________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA ______________________________ JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO 03rd February, 2010. Ak