DUBAGUNTA SUBRAHMANYAM, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal and revision arise out of common judgment dated 17-12-1990 in o. S. NO. 374 of 1987 and O. P. No. 95 of 1988 on the file of First Additional Subordinate judge, Visakhapatnam. ( 2 ) NECESSARY facts for disposal of appeal and revision are as follows:- The first respondent was a contractor. He will be referred to as Contractor herein after. There was a contract dated 26-9-1982 between him and the department relating to excavation of water supply canal from K. Ms. 12. 260 to 12. 800 (including lining) 10th reach within the jurisdiction of YRP Circle, visakhapatnam. The value of contract is rs. 25,81,574/ -. As per terms of contract, the contractor has to complete the work within 12 months from the date of handing over the site to him. The site was handed over to him on 8-10-1981. He could not complete the work within the stipulated time. He was seeking extensions of time to complete the work. He was granted extensions of time by the department. He completed the work in or about July, 1986. There is an arbitration clause in the contract. At the instance of contractor the dispute regarding payment for the work done by him (contractor) was referred to three arbitrators named in the contract. The contractor filed a claim statement before arbitrators. There are nine claims made under different heads by the contractor. The department opposed all claims made by the contractor. The arbitrators accepted third claim alone and rejected other claims made by the contractor. This claim is for a sum of Rs. 21,97,000/- towards loss on classification of soils and difference of rates. It includes a claim for compensation for escalation of rates after the period fixed for completion of work was over. This portion of the claim is made on the ground of escalation of rates during theextended period of contract. The arbitrators did not fix any particular sum to which contractor is entitled under 3rd claim. Regarding classification of soils, arbitrators directed payment to be made to contractor as per the classification made jointly by Executive Engineer and Executive engineer (Quality control ). Regarding escalation of rates during the extended period of contract, the arbitrators directed that the contractors shall be paid current S. S. rates of 1983-84 plus tender premium of 23. Regarding classification of soils, arbitrators directed payment to be made to contractor as per the classification made jointly by Executive Engineer and Executive engineer (Quality control ). Regarding escalation of rates during the extended period of contract, the arbitrators directed that the contractors shall be paid current S. S. rates of 1983-84 plus tender premium of 23. 83% for the work done by him after September, 1983. The contractor filed a suit in O. S. No. 374 of 1997 requesting the Civil Court to confirm the award and to make it rule of the Court. He sought for a decree for a sum of rs. 15,00,850/- with interest at the rate of 10%. The defendants filed O. P. No. 95 of 1988 requesting Court set aside the award passed by the arbitrators on 27-7-1987. During the pendency of the above proceedings the contractor died. His Legal representatives came on record in the suit as well as in the o. P. The respondents 2 to 6 in these two matters are L. Rs. of the contractor-first respondent. Both parties did not adduce oral or documentary evidence before the Civil court. The learned Senior Civil Judge confirmed the award and passed a decree for a sum of Rs. 15,00,850/- with interest at 10% on the above amount from the date of award till realization. He accordingly decreed the suit and dismissed O. P. No. 95 of 1988 without cots. Aggrieved by the common judgment, department filed the present appeal and revision petition. ( 3 ) THE appeal and revision have come up for hearing earlier and by a common order dated 14-7-1995 a Division Bench of this court allowed the appeal and revision in part and held that the contractor is not entitled for any compensation or damages on the ground of escalation of ratesduring ex tended period of contract. The decree passed by the trial Court was modified. The contractor was held to be entitled for a sum of rs. 4,57,720/ -. Aggrieved by the said common order of this Court, Legal representatives of the contractor filed Civil appeal Nos. 10414 and 10415 of 1996 before supreme Court of India. The apex Court allowed civil appeals and remanded the matters to this Court for disposal. Thus, these two matters came up for hearing before this division bench. 4,57,720/ -. Aggrieved by the said common order of this Court, Legal representatives of the contractor filed Civil appeal Nos. 10414 and 10415 of 1996 before supreme Court of India. The apex Court allowed civil appeals and remanded the matters to this Court for disposal. Thus, these two matters came up for hearing before this division bench. ( 4 ) EARLIER, a division bench of this Court held that the contractor is entitled for a sum of Rs. 4,57,720/ -. The department did not file any appeal questioning that order before apex Court. The decree of the Civil Court regarding balance of amount alone was set- aside earlier by this Court. Even at the time of fresh hearing of these matters by this Bench, the department did not contend that the contractor is not entitled for Rs. 4,57,720/- towards difference in soil. ( 5 ) REGARDING escalation of rates during extended period of contract, it is the contention of the Department that the contractor addressed a letter to the Executive engineer seeking extension of time and in that letter he categorically mentioned that he will not claim any extra amount or compensation on account of granting of time. It is the contention of Department that in view of this undertaking given by him the contractor is not entitled to claim any extra amount during the extended period of contract on the ground of escalation of costs. According to Arbitrators that letter was given by contractor due to duress and therefore he his entitled for compensation. Earlier this court observed that finding of the arbitrators that the said letter was given under duress was based on a surmise rather on any material placed on record. It was further observed that it was not even pleaded by the contractor that any pressure was exerted on him to furnish an undertaking, which he gave in the letter. It was also observed that there is no foundation in the pleadings regarding coercion or undue influence. On this aspect, apex Court in its order held that the finding of High Court that there are no pleadings regarding duress is concerned is not correct and set aside the said finding. The Apex court directed this Court to go into the question whether there was coercion or duress in the present case. With that direction the matters were remitted back to this Court. The Apex court directed this Court to go into the question whether there was coercion or duress in the present case. With that direction the matters were remitted back to this Court. ( 6 ) AT the time of hearing of these matters, the learned Counsel appearing for the contractor was specifically asked by us to point out any evidence regarding the plea that undertaking by the contractor not to claim any extra compensation amount on account of extension of time was given due to duress or coercion or undue influence. The learned Counsel relied upon one letter dated 14-6-1983 addressed by Executive engineer to the contractor. It reads as follows;- "government OF ANDHRA PRADESH IRRIGATION (PROJECTS WING) DEPARTMENT from To sri N. Ganga Prasad, B. E. , Sri G. Kondal Rao, executive Engineer, A/c, Contractor, y. R. C. Division, D/mp/49-27-6/, ankapalle Visakhapatnam lr. No. DB/so/wsc-10 (a) 819 M Dated. 14-6-83 gentleman, sub: Excavation of Water supply canal from K. M. 12. 2612. 80 including lining-further extension of time or completion or work-Regarding. Ref: 1. S. E s agreement No. 23/81-82 2. Your representation dt. 18-3-83 the work of excavation of Water Supply Canal from KM. 12. 26 to 12. 80 was entrusted to you. The work was commanded on 8-10-81 and as per original agreement conditions the entire work should have been completed by 7-10-82. But you have not completed the work by due date and at your request extension of time was granted first time upto 31-3-83. Even by that date, the work was not completed and further extension upto 30-9-83 was sought by you vide your letter dated 18-3-83 and it is under consideration. As the granting of extension is necessitated due to your failure to complete the work with in stipulated time and further extension was sought for by your are requested to furnish an undertaking "that I will not claim for any compensation due to granting of extension of time. Early action requested in this regard. Your faithfully, sd. N. Ganga Prasad, executive Engineer, yrc Division, anakapalle. " the contents of the said letter do not indicate that any threat or pressure was given to the contractor to give an undertaking that he will not claim any extra compensation amount on account of extension of time. No other piece of evidence is brought to our notice by the learned counsel appearing for the Contractor. " the contents of the said letter do not indicate that any threat or pressure was given to the contractor to give an undertaking that he will not claim any extra compensation amount on account of extension of time. No other piece of evidence is brought to our notice by the learned counsel appearing for the Contractor. ( 7 ) IT is contended by the learned Counsel that bills of the contractor were held up and it amounts to economic coercion by the department. No material is pointed to us by the learned Counsel for the Contractor to indicate that prior to the contractor giving a letter undertaking not to claim any additional compensation during extended period of work, any of his bills were held up or delayed by the department. The above contention cannot be accepted in the absence of evidence in that regard. ( 8 ) THE learned counsel for the contractor invited the attention of this Court to a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in superintending Engineer v. Progressive engineering Company wherein it was held that refusal of extension of time despite there being valid reasons unless the contractor offered to execute the work for old rates might amount to economic duress especially because the employer is in a position of dominance armed, as it were, with a printed form of contract with terms of his choice. In our considered opinion this decision has no application to the facts of the present appeal. It is to be stated that the letter given by contractor is not in a printed form. It is a typed letter voluntarily given by him. If the contractor for any reason is not willing to complete the work at the rates mentioned in the contract he need not give any letter seeking extension of time to complete the work undertaken by him. It is an important aspect to be kept in mind. It is not the case of the contractor that the department insisted him to give a letter seeking extension of time. Only after he sought for extension of time, the department informed him that extension can be considered only if he undertakes not to claim any extra amount or compensation for the work done during extended period of contract. It is not the case of the contractor that the department insisted him to give a letter seeking extension of time. Only after he sought for extension of time, the department informed him that extension can be considered only if he undertakes not to claim any extra amount or compensation for the work done during extended period of contract. Further the facts of the above decision, as clear from the observations made by the learned Judges in para 11 of the judgment, indicate that the correspondence shows that the contractor did infact made a claim initially to compensate him adequately for increase in the market rates as well as extra amount under some heads incurred on account of delay. Thereafter, the Assistant engineer informed the contractor therein that extension of time could be recommended only if he agreed to accept agreement rates. A similar letter was addressed by the executive Engineer also. Thereafter, the contractor therein addressed a letter to the superintendent Engineer reiterating his request for extension of time and in that letter also, he indicated that he was prepared to execute the agreement works without prejudice to the claims preferred by him. There is another crucial letter addressed by the Assistant Engineer, The Assistant engineer informed the contractor therein that payment can be arranged only after granting extension of time. In that background, this court observed that the department was not willing to release payments due to Contractor apart from not accepting request for extension of time until and unless an undertaking was given by him not to claim extra ra tes. In view of facts and circumstances of the said case, the learned Judges observed that the letter addressed by Assistant Engineer bears ample testimony to the coercive methodology adopted by the department to accomplish their objective. The said principle has no application to the facts of the present appeal as there is no evidence to indicate even remotely that the payments due to contractor were held up and delayed with a view to coerce him to give an undertaking not to claim escalation in costs during extended period of contract. Therefore we hold that the contractor did not prove alleged coercion and duress and therefore observations made by the arbitrators are without any basis or evidence on record. Therefore we hold that the contractor did not prove alleged coercion and duress and therefore observations made by the arbitrators are without any basis or evidence on record. When the contractor voluntarily sought for extension of time to complete the remaining work and had voluntarily undertaken not to claim compensation or extra amount during extended period of contract, it is to be held that he waived his right of compensation on the ground of escalation in costs and therefore he is not entitled to any extra amount on that count during extended period of contract. We are therefore satisfied that the Award passed by arbitrators and confirmed by the lower Court in so far as it relates to compensation amount during extended period of contract is not legally and factually sustainable and is liable to be set aside. ( 9 ) IN the result, the appeal and the revision are allowed partly without any order as to costs. The award of the arbitrators is made the rule of the Court for a sum of rs. 4,57,720/- only with future interest thereon at 6% p. a. from the date of award viz. , 27-7-1987 till the date of payment. The award of the arbitrators and the decree of the civil Court for balance of amount are set aside. Both parties shall bear their own costs in the suit and O. P.