extra cost, it was held that no amount was payable to them for increase in height of the bridge. Further, the AT also found that the contract permitted the Engineer to make necessary corrections or modifications in the previous interim payment certificates and that the Engineer was justified in subsequently adjusting the overpayments found to have been made to the claimant – contractor. However, the AT found that due to the change in alignment both longitudinally and laterally, there was change in the height of piers at various locations. The road level at the time of NIT and after the execution of the work did not show any difference. From the materials on record, it was found that there was an average increase in height by 52.1 cm. This increase was due to the change in design of the bridge/superstructure. The increase in height, after deducting the increase in height, due to the change in design of superstructure, was found to be 3.5 cm. Therefore, the AT accepted the claim for payment for this additional increase at the rate provided in the BOQ. The AT concluded that the claimant is entitled only to the extent of cost incurred due to increase in the height of the bridge due to change in alignment alone, i.e., for an increase in height of 3.50 cm. The amount payable was found to be ₹ 5,25,000/- i.e., at the rate of ₹ 1.50 lakh
