JUDGMENT This is a revision under section 19 of the Madhya Pradesh Madhyastham Adhiniyam, 1983, filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh challenging the award passed in Case No. 4/85 whereby the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 83,342/- on different counts. Out of the said amount of Rs. 83,342/- it was directed that the amount of Rs. 69,936/- shall carry interest @ 12% per annum from 22/5/82 till the date of realisation and counsel fee at Rs. 2,500/-. The non-applicant Shivram Singh was an attorney of Raghuvanshi Construction. Company was awarded contract for construction of Chidwani minor tank. The work was completed within the stipulated time. However, the Company had to undertake some extra work for which the rates were revised and were accepted by the contractor. A final bill was prepared and payment was made which was accepted without any protest by the claimant. The claimant however, filed it claim before the Arbritation Tribunal claiming a sum of Rs. 3,11,200/- as under:-- 25,000/ (i) Work more than the contracted quantity 1,18,200/- (ii) Puddle excavation and filling 19,000/- (iii) Construction of approach roads 25,000/- (iv) Rebate on account of delay in giving the 43,000/- layout and shrinkage (v) Interest on account of non-payment at 1,15,000/- the right time The learned claims tribunal however awarded the claims as under:- A. Rs. 28,636/- for pucca and kachha work; B. Rs. 3,600/- price of empty bags and bags filled with sand; C. Rs. 9,700/- for re-excavation of puddle trench and puddle core; D. Rs. 10,000/- for constructing temporary bund and its maintenance; E. Rs. 8,000/- for shrinkage rebate; F. Rs. 10,000/- refund of amount detained: G. Rs. 6,211/- interest on Rs. 34,694/- for the period between 24/11/80 and 22/5/82; H. Rs. 1,700/- Interest on Rs. 10,000/- detained for the same period. I. Rs. 5,405/- Interest on Rs. 30, 194/- (earnest money and security deposit) for the same period. Total Rs: 83,342.00 only This award is challenged in this revision. The award was challenged on different counts. Firstly, on the ground that the tribunal failed to consider that no dispute was raised by the applicant before the authorities before coming to this Court in respect of several items; and secondly, that the claimant having accepted the payment without any protest, it should be held that the claim was afterthought. It was also submitted that the claim has been awarded against the contract clauses. It was also submitted that the claim has been awarded against the contract clauses. As such the award of the same is against the provisions of law. No award could have been made against the specific contract agreement. The last argument was that the claim was not filed by proper person. Having considered the arguments we reject the last submission that the claim was not filed by the proper person. No such objection was taken before the tribunal. As such the same is rejected. As regards the other objection we find that there is some substance in the same. It cannot be doubted that the tribunal itself had found in para 8 of the award that some of the items have not been included in the original contract at all, as under:-Para 8 "There is however no dispute that the petitioner has, infact, carried on work for items involving increase by more than 10% of quantities, and some items which have not been included in the original contract at all." Thus, we have to examine whether the claimant was entitled to any amount on account of the same. The first claim was in respect of increase in quantities by 10% of the total quantities executed. For this the rate was revised. The contractor claimed a sum of Rs. 1,18,200/- for the total quantities. However, the tribunal awarded only 28,636/- for the same. The tribunal has based its award on the basis of documents and the accounts filed. We do not think that the tribunal was in error in awarding the said amount towards the claim. This amount was said for the work done in respect of Kachha and Pucca Work, for which there does not appear to be any dispute. However, we do not find that any award could have been made in respect of other items for which admit~\y the claimant raised 1\0 dispute before the executive engineer or the authority mentioned in the contract. As such the award made on items B,C,D, and E cannot be supported and are therefore set aside. As regards the items awarded under F,G,H and I, there is no justification for directing refund of Rs. 10,000/- which was withheld on account of objection raised by the Accountant General. Nothing has been shown that this claim was wrongly withheld. As such the award made on items B,C,D, and E cannot be supported and are therefore set aside. As regards the items awarded under F,G,H and I, there is no justification for directing refund of Rs. 10,000/- which was withheld on account of objection raised by the Accountant General. Nothing has been shown that this claim was wrongly withheld. The claimant was making a claim towards loss of interest in business towards various amounts shown in this head. The reasoning of the tribunal is that the final bill was not prepared by the department as such the payment was not made in time and in that event the claimant was entitled to get interest on the amount not paid. The record does not show that the claimant had prepared a final bill and submitted for payment for the work which was completed on 24/11/80. Further the tribunal has stated in para 26 that withholding of the security deposit and the earnest money was un justified, and as such it should carry interest for non-payment of the same. It appears that this non-payment of earnest money and the security was not justified. As such award of Rs. 5,405/- under head I was justified. However, all other claims were not tenable and the claim awarded on the same are set aside. The non-applicant/contractor shall get an award of Rs. 28,636/- plus 5405/- as loss of interest on earnest money and security. The appeal is partly allowed except to the extent indicated i.e. the amount of Rs. 28,636/- and Rs. 5,405/- on two counts all other claims are rejected and award is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.