f^A' ^ OF : HON'BLE S.R. NAYAK, CJ, & HON'BLE SHRI V.K. SHPJVASTAVA, -J. ayiL NO. Versus NON»APPLJCANT: 1. of Chhattisgarh , Through: The Secretary, Public Works Depertment. DKS Bhawan, [viarstraiaya, Ralpur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Chief Englneer Buildings and Roads, Public Works Department, Biiaspur, (CG).. NsAvarIal Goyal, r/o. Kawada Badi, Rajgarh, (C-G). PRESENT: Shri Utkarsh Verma, Dy. Govt. Advocate for th©appljcants/ State. OR D E R (Dated 10th November, Ths foiSowIng ora? order ofthe Court 'A'as passed by Vijay Kuniar Shrivastava, J. Beir Being aggrievea' by the a*A'ard passed by Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran, Raipur in Reference No.91/2005 whsrein parties are Nafr,varlaj Goyai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others v/hereby the Trlbunaj aiiowed the reference and dirscted both the appiicants to pay an amount of Rs.80,944/'- atong with interest @ Rs. 12% to non-appiscant NatA'arial Goyal, this revision has bssn preferred under Section 19 ofthe Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran Adhiniyam, 1983 (hencefortlT, %®tg^^»S Adhiniyam), by ths Stste of Chhattisgarh and Chief Enginssr who are appjjcants hsreln. 2) Natvvariai Goyai - non-appiicant vvas av.^rded work of AsphaJiing of Chapel ~ Nandeli Road under sgreement dated 258/D/1996-97 by the PublJc Works DeparSment. After compietion ofthe work contract, finai blii was preparsd, but the amount of tina! biil amounting to Rs.80,944/- was not paid by the department to non-sppiicant Nahvariaj Goyal in the garb of istter dated 05/05/1997 alieged to be issued by non-appllcant Natwaral Goyal authorizing departmsnt to adjust the amount against recovery psnding against Shri Shankar Lal Sharma, Toli Tax Contractor and acting on the basis of that letter ths amount payab!e to non-applicant NafrvvarSai Goyai hss besn adjustsd. Natwarial Goyal referred the dispute by prssenting his reference petition to the Tribunal. Lsarned Tribunal ai4er nocessar/ enquiry as envisaged under tho Act, decidod the objection ratesd by the department regarding IsmitatiOR and liabiiity to pay. The Tribunaj after due conslderation held that the referencs petition Is weii v.'ithin time and the aiieged letter dated 06/05/1997 has not besn proved to be sent by non-appiicant NatA'aria! Goyai or evsr it was verified from him and the amount payable to non-applicant Natwariai Goyal has been Vv'rongiy adjusted by the department. 3) Learned counsei for the appiicanUeontended that the refersnce filed by the n&n-appjicant Nafr»var LaS Goyai was time barred, as non- appjicant Nafrvvar La! Goyal did not submjt his ciaim in Vs'riting to the Engineer-jn-Chief within ons month from the dats of accruai ofsuch ciaim. From the award it is cEear that on 12/10/1999 non-applicant Nafr^ar Lai Goyal sought time for fiilng the refsrence before the finai authority and only after that since the final authorifr/ has faiied to take any decision in the matter who was moved l<vithin thres ysars from the date of accruai of the cause of action, the.-efore, the Tribubai heid that the reference is well v/ithin time. 4) Section 7-B of the Act does not prsscribe any tlme iimit for referring the matter for the decision to finai authority. tt appears that accordlng to law of iimitation within three ysars, the ciaimsnt is sntitlsd to present hls reference before the authoritj. Thereforo, learned Tribunai did not srr in hoiding the reference to be v/ithsn IJmitatjon. 5) Loarned counsel for the appiicanufurther contended that thQ letter a'ated 05/05/1997 written by non-applicant Natwarlai Goyal for ailowing the adjustment was adduced befors the Tribunai, but the Tribunal did not appreciate it properiy and passed the award. From the award, it is manifsst thaf Tribunai ve"y minufely considered the affidavit filed by the department and the report of the Executive Engineer Shri R.K. Diwan dated 21/05/1998 submitled to the Statio," House C'fficer and after appreciation of the materjai on record, heid that neither the letter was presented by non-appiicant Natwariai Goyai nor the same was personaily v©rjiiedby hirrs. Even the report dated 2'1/05/1998 was not provsd by any evidsnce or affidavit. Learned Tribunai rightiy heid that the department miserabiy faiied to prove the document dated 06/05/1997 and v/rongiy adjusted the amount payabie to non-appjicant. 6) The iast contention of iearned counsel for the applicanUis that the rate of interest is on higher side. The TribuRai has been authorized to aiiow the amount siong with cost and intersst, and it Is In his discretion. According to Section 16 ofthe Act, the rats or interest is to bs fixed by the Tribunai as may appear reasonable to it. Ths rate of jnterest i.e., 12% aiiowed by the Tribunai does not appear to bs unreasonab!e and the a'iscretion exercised by'the Tribunai in ajiowing the^e of interest 12% does not appear to be arbltrary' or JiJegai. ~~ z s. \ / 7) In th©result, the revision being devoid of merit is jiabte to be dismissed and is accordingjy dismissea' In ijmine. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge Raju