'^. COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : S.R. NAYAK, CJ, & HQN'BLE SHRI V.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. CJVIL N0. APPLICANTS: State ofChhattisgarh, Through: The Secretary. Publiu Works Department. DKS Bhawan, ivlantraiaya, Ralpur, Chhattjsgarh. 2. The Chlef Sn. Versus NON'APPLICANT: Enginser Bujidings and Roads, PubJicWorks Department, Biiaspur, (CG).. Nafr.varlai Goyai, r/o. Kawada Badl, Raigarh, (CG). PRESENT: Shrl Utkarsh verma, Dy. Go\±Advocate for tno appiicants/ -State. ORDER (Dated 10th November, 200S) The foilov/jng oral order of the Cousl was passed by Vijay Kiimar Shrivastava, J. Bejng aggrieved by the a*<vard by Chhattisgarh Madhyastham Adhikaran, Raspur In Reference No.90/2005 wherein parties are Nat.varial Goyal Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and others whereby the Trjbunai aiiow'ed the reference and directed both the appllcants to pay an a??iount of Rs.80,285/- aiong with interest @ Rs. 12% to non-appiicant NatA'arlai Goyai, this revjsion has been preferred under Section 19 ofthe Chhattisgarh Maa'hyastham Adhskaran Adhsniyam, 1983 (henceforth, /t:. "^ €) 2 Adhiniyam), by the State of Chhatlisgarh and Chief Enginser who are appsicaRts hsrein. 2) Nafr«variai Goyai - non-applicant vvas awarded work of Asphaliing of Chapel - Nandeij Road under agreemsnt datsd 237/D/1996-97 by the Pub!!c Works Department. After compietion of the work contract, final blli was prepared, but the amount of iinai bill aniouRtlng to Rs.80,285/- was not paid by the department to non-applicant Natwarisi Goyal in the garb of stter dated 06/05/1997 aileged to be issued by Ron-appiicant Natwaraj lett. Goyal authorizing dapartment to aa'just the amount agajnst rocover/ pending agasnst Shri Shankar Lai Sharma, Tolj Tax Contractor and acting cn the basis of Shat ietter the amount payable to non-appiicant ?\iafr»varial Goyal has been adjusted. NatVv'arial Goya! referred the dispute by presenting his reference petition to the Tribunal. Learnsd Tribunal after nscessary enquiry' as envisagsd undsr the Act, decjded the objection rassed by the department regarding limitatlon and Iiabi!ity to psy. The Tribunaj after due consideration heid that the reference petition is wsii wjthin time and ths ajlegsd Settsr dated 06/05/1997 has not been proved to be sent by Ron-appiicant Natvvariai Goyai or ©verit was verifisd from him and the amount payabje to non-appiicant NstA'ariai Goyai has been wrongjy adjusted by the department. 3) Learned coynsej for the appjicants contendsd that the rsference fiied by the non-appiicant Nafr.var Laj Goyal *«vas time barred, as non- appiicant NafrA'ar LaJ Goyal did not submit hls ciaim in writing to the Engineer-in-Chief v»'lthjnone month from the date of accruai of such cJaim. From the al<vard it is ciear that on 12/10/1999 non-sppjicant NafrA'ar Lal Goyai sought time for ^IJng the reference before the finai authority and only after that since the finai authority has faiisd to take any decision In the mattsr who v»'as moved Wifhin thrse years from the date of accruai of the cause of action, therefore, the Tribubai held that the rsference is well wjthin time. 4) Sectior! 7-B of the Act does not prescribe any tjme limit for referring the matter for the decision to finai authority'. It appears that according to iaw of iimitation 'A'ithin three years, fhe ciaimant is entitied to present his reforence beforo the authority. Therefore, ieamea' Tribunal did not err in hoiding the reference to be within limitation. 5) Learned counsel for the appiicap.ifurther contended that the ietser 05/05/1997 v.'ritten by non-applicant Natwaria! Goyai for aiio'A'ing the adjustment was adduced before the Tribunai, but the Tnbunai did not appreeiate it propsrly and passed the award. From the award, it js manlfest that Tribunai very minuteiy considered fhe affidavit fiisd by the department and the report of the Executive Enginesr Shri R.K. Div/an 21/05/1998 submitted to the Station Houss Officer and apprecjation of tho materiai on rscord, heid that p.either the ietter was presented by non-appilcant Natvvarla! Goyai nor the same was personaliy verifisd by hlm. Even the report dated 21/05/1998 was not proved by any evidence or affidavit. Learned Tribunai rightiy heid that the department miserabiy failed to prove the documsnt dated 06/05/1997 and wrongly adjusted the amount payabie to non-appiicant. S') Ths iast contention of learned counsei for the applicant^is that the rate of intersst is on hlgher side. Ths Tribunai has besn authorized to aliow the amount aiong with cost and interest, and it is in his discretion. According to Section 15 of the Act, the rate of interest Is to bs fixed by the Tribunai as may appear reasonabie to it. The rate of Interest i.e., 12% aijowsd by fhs Tribunai does not appear to bs unreasonabie and the discretion exercised by the Trlbunal in allowing the rate of irsterest 12% does not appear to be a.-bltrary or IJiegaJ. Raju 7) in the result, ths revlsion being devoid of merit is iiable to be dismissed and is accordingiy dismissed in iiminef Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- V.K-Shrivastava Judge