From,

To,

Sir,

Subject:- Cross examination of Sri S RW-5 on 10-11-2020 at 11.30am through

video conferencing by Sri Chaitanya S.G, learned counsel for claimant in
AC. No.126/2016/(CMP-100029/15) in respect of improvements to M.I
tank at Chitawadagi

Adverting to the above subject I beg to bring few lines for your kind
considerations and further needful in the matter.

My cross examination as RW-5 was conducted through video conferencing on

10-11-2020 at 11.30 AM by Sri. Chaitanya. S.G, learned counsel for claimant in
respect of Arbitration case of M.I tank at Chitawadagi .

During my cross examination the learned counsel for claimant Sri. Chaitanya .
S. G, insisted me to answer only in two words “Yes” or “No” in respect few of the
question viz question No 8 and 9. As soon as I answered the above questions, I
wanted to elaborate my answer, so that there is confusion in respect of my one word
answer, but the learned counsel for claimant did not heed to my request. At this
juncture, the Govt. pleader also did not come to my help.

Time and again, the learned counsel for claimant was in a hurry to prove that
the estimate was prepared in haste and is faulty as in question No 8, 9, 11, 14, 23
and 37. The learned counsel for claimant frequently repeated these questions as
stated above, in order to get answer as desired by him to suit his case and thereby
prove that the preparation of estimate itself is faulty. However I have replied to all the
questions put forth by the learned counsel for claimant in an appropriate manner.
Further I write a submit as under.

The estimate was prepared based on the designed discharge as proposed in

the Original estimate, considering the range of swelling pressure from 50 to 150
Kn/m2 and by adopting the guidelines of Indian standard IS 9451(1994) table 1A.
Accordingly provisions in the sanctioned estimate is made for 30 Cms thickness of
C.N.S layer for bottom and sides and M15 concrete with a thickness of 10Cms for
bed and 7.5 Cms for sides. This matter was brought to the notice of the Arbitrator in
the written statement (Evidence by way of affidavit) in P.No. 10, submitted before the
Honourable arbitration centre Bangalore. All through the cross examination, the
learned counsel for claimant, wanted to prove that the cracks in the LBC from 2.00
KM to 6.00 KM is due to insufficient thickness of CNS layer provided in the estimate.
On the other hand the learned counsel for claimant intentionally and clearverly
forgotten the bed quality of work done in LBC 2.00 KM to 6.00 KM, which was
highlighted in the quality control report furnished by the third party “Premier
Technical Consultants”, Date 30-06-2013, where in the thickness of CNS layers and
thickness of concrete for bed and sides at all the random locations where the cores
are taken, are far less than the provisions made in the sanctioned estimate.

Here it is to be stated that the LBC from 0.00 to 2.00 KMs also runs in deep
B.C. Soil and the work of improvements to this reach is tackled with 30 Cm CNS
layer at bottom and sides and M15 concrete of thickness 10 Cm for bed and 7.5 Cm
for sides as recommended in the sanctioned estimate. This reach of LBC up to 2.00
KM has not developed any cracks (Horizontally or vertically) and the bill for this
reach is also paid to claimant.

It is only beyond 2.00 Km upto 6.00 Kms that the cracks have developed after
the execution of the work, which is due to bad quality of work turned out by the
claimant. This is evident from the quality control report dated 30-06-2013 furnished
by Premier Technical Consultant, who was authorised to conduct quality control tests
for the above work. In the quality control reports, the reasons for the development of
cracks in canal bed and sides as summarised by Premier Technical Consultant are
as under.

1. In the sanctioned estimate, the provision of C.C has been provided 75mm for
side slopes and 100mm for bed. After taking C.C cores by our technical staff,
it is observed that the thickness of CC for bed and sides is not to the required
thickness at some locations. (As stated in Para 1 page-1 of report date-30-06-
2013.
 2. In spite of given instructions orally by our field staff during execution, the
gravel casing provided in some reaches, where the cores are taken is less
than the provision made in estimate.(As per Para-2, page-1 of the report date-
30-06-2013 )
3. Due to insufficient curing in the initial stage. (As per item No.2 of Para-3,page-
1 of the report date-30-06-2013)

(Copy of the report enclosed for your kind reference)

It is to report further that Inspite of notices given by the department vide Ex R-

11 and Ex R-23, the claimant did not execute the work as required under clause 16.1
and 17.1 and 49(2)(a) and (e) of agreement vide Ex R-1.

Further in the quality control report date-30-06-2013 furnished by the third

party, it is stated in item 1 of para-3, page-1 of report, that after conducting the test of
swelling pressure of BC soil. The value is found to be 126Kn/sq mt. However in the
sanctioned estimate the thickness of CNS layer is considered as 30cm for bed and
as well as for sides as per I.S 9451(1994) Table 1A, which is appropriate for a
swelling pressure of 50 to 150Kn/Sqmt .

It is to be specifically pointed out, that the Premier Technical Consultant in his

report mentioned that, as per the guidelines given by Sri. S.B.Koimattur Retd. S.E,
the gravel casing to be provided works out to 750mm. Here it is to be stated that this
thickness is as per the case study viz ‘’ENGINEERING PRACTICES IN EXPANSIVE
SOILS“ which was conducted by Sri. S.B.Koimattur, Retd SE in malaprabha
command area. Hence the study is project specific and for this reason, it cannot be
considered as generalised. Moreover Guidelines of Sri. S.B.Koimattur was not made
available in all the Government offices of the state for adopting the same since the
study was area specific. Therefore the estimate is framed based and IS code which
is universal, and is justified, such being the case, anyone can come to the conclusion
that the cracks developed in LBC from 2.00 km to 6.00 km is totally due to bad
quality of work undertaken by the claimant and remarks of the learned counsel for
claimant that the estimate is faulty is far from truth.

Moving ahead during my cross examination, learned counsel for claimant

repeatedly claims that the work has been carried out by the claimant, satisfactorily as
per tender clause and the bill payment for the above work is not done by the
department intentionally, vide question No 31.33,38,39 and 40 of the cross
examination. However it is quite astonishing on the part of learned counsel for
claimant, that he still considered the work is carried out by the claimant as per
Ex R-1, even after quality control report were made available to them, vide.
Annexure R- 27. The work carried out by the claimant in LBC reach up to 2.00 km
was satisfactory and bill for the same was also paid without any delay. But the work
carried out in LBC from 2.00 km to 6.00 km is shabby without proper curing and not
in accordance with Ex R-1 and the bill for such work cannot be paid as per Article
165(vii) of KPWD code volume-1 and the Government has no erroneous intension to
trouble the claimant.

The above points are to be brought to the notice of the Arbitrator through an
Affidant by the Govt Pleader for his kind considerations. If not the order may prove
detrimental to the interest of the Govt.

As regards the appointment Govt pleaders for this case, it is to be stated that
on the day of my cross examination date 10-11-2020 Sri Basavaraju attended the
case as Govt pleader on behalf of the respondent.

On next date of hearing ie 10-12-2020 Sri Venkat Satyanarayan attended the

proceedings as learned counsel for respondent and Sri. Nityanand K R attended the
proceedings on 16-12-2020.

In a matter of almost one month, three different Govt. Pleaders have

participated in the proceedings of the Arbitrator. Adding to this it is learnt from the
proceedings date 16-12-2020 that, the Honourable sole Arbitrator has suggested
the office of the Advocate General of Honourable High court of Karnataka to appoint
a regular Government pleader as learned counsel for respondent in respect of this
case.

Such being the case the temporary Govt pleaders possesses very little
knowledge about the fact of the case and will not be able to help and advise the Govt
witnesses during cross examination, as the case with me during the cross
examination date 10-11-2020.