In fact as noticed above, Claim No. 17 is not based on Clause 10(c) of the agreement. The respondent had preferred separate claim namely, Claim No. 19 under Clause 10CC of the agreement and there is not dispute that the said claim was entertained and adjudicated upon, keeping in view the provisions of Clause 10CC of the agreement between the parties. The Claim No. 17 is in fact founded on different premise altogether. It was the case of the respondent that because of prolongation of the Contract due to the fault on the part of the appellant, the respondent was made to incur the expenditure on idle labour, staff, machinery centering, shuttering and other ancillary requirements like electricity, water, petroleum, etc. It was the case of the respondent that it was necessary for the respondent to keep regular establishment including graduate engineer at site till the work is completed as required under Clause 36 of the agreement. The Arbitrator found that the respondent had in fact incurred expenditure on the aforesaid grounds and awarded the claim @ 5,000 per month for the period of delay which was 44 months and on this basis a sum of Rs. 2,20,000 was awarded. It was clear, therefore, that Claim No. 17 was for damages on account of prolongation of Contract inasmuch as respondent was made to incur unnecessary expenditure due to the fault of the appellant in prolonging the Contract. This claim is, therefore, maintainable as per Sections 73 and 74 of the Contract Act which gave entitlement to the respondent to claim damages/loss suffered due to breach of contract by the appellant. The award of Claim No. 17 was, therefore, justified and we see no merit in the aforesaid contention raised by the appellant. ”
