JUDGMENT/ORDER 1. Considering the fact that O.P.Nos.786 of 2005 and 321 of 2007 have been filed as against the single award, they have been taken up together and disposed of by way of a common order. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in O.P.No.786 of 2005. 3. The second respondent awarded the contract to the petitioner on 21.09.1995 for the construction of elevated station building and associated works at Luz. The contract was for a value of Rs.4,97,90,515.79. The original period for the said construction was nine months. The contract was executed over the period of 35 months as against the stipulated period of nine months. This was for the reason that the respondent was unable to hand over the vacant site after clearing the encroachments. It appears that thereafter, there was some delay, which could be attributed both to the petitioner and the respondents 1 and 2. As could be seen by the Tribunal's award, the work was completed within the extended period. The second respondent, in and by the letters dated 30.07.1997 and 25.09.1997 has informed the petitioner that a further sum of Rs.20 lakhs would be paid towards the escalation of the price for the work to be done for the extended period as against the all other claims made. 4. The petitioner made about 12 claims. The award was with respect to seven claims. The respondents 1 and 2 partially complied with the award and made payment of Rs. 23,73,796/-. The first respondent made a challenge with respect to claim Nos.7 and 12, for which, Rs.92,000/- and Rs.2,51,672/- were awarded towards insurance premium and interest respectively. The petitioner has challenged the reduction of the award amount towards escalation and non granting of any amount on profit and overheads. 5. The Tribunal, having found that Insurance premium is being mandatory and the employees having been employed in pursuant to the extension, admittedly, awarded a sum of Rs.92,000/- towards the aforesaid claim. This amount is only 50% of the insurance premium paid. Secondly, the interest awarded is only for a sum of Rs.2,51,672/-, as Clause 64(5) of the General Conditions of Contract came into effect subsequent to the contract awarded. This amount is only 50% of the insurance premium paid. Secondly, the interest awarded is only for a sum of Rs.2,51,672/-, as Clause 64(5) of the General Conditions of Contract came into effect subsequent to the contract awarded. Insofar as the price escalation and profit overheads are concerned, the Tribunal adopted its own formula, which is adopted for other contractors as against the admission made by the respondents 1 and 2 for Rs.25 lakhs and Rs.17,12,715/- respectively. For the profit overheads the Tribunal has not granted any amount presumably on the ground that the delay has occasioned on the part of both parties, though initially it was due to the respondents 1 and 2. It is further held that the award made for the price escalation would be sufficient. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petition filed by the respondent will have to be dismissed since the Tribunal has awarded only 50% of the Insurance premium paid and the provision contained under Section 64.5 of the General Conditions of Contract having coming into play subsequent to the contract. Insofar as the price escalation is concerned, as against the admission made to the communication of the second respondent, atleast it should have been awarded for Rs.20 lakhs. The submission of the learned counsel is that the Tribunal ought not to have rejected profit overheads as number of persons have been engaged. 7. The learned counsel for the respondents would submit while seeking to rely upon the findings of the Tribunal, qua the price escalation, profit overhead, the award for interest and insurance premium cannot be sustained. 8. Coming to O.P.No.321 of 2007 filed by the respondents in O.P.No.786 of 2005, this Court is of the view that no interference is required. The Tribunal only awarded 50% of the insurance premium. The delay was also made attributable on the part of the respondents. Secondly, the interest awarded was only Rs.2,75,672/-. Admittedly, Clause 64.5 of the General Conditions of the Contract has to come into force only subsequent to the award of the contract. Hence, O.P. No.321 of 2007 stands dismissed. 9. Coming to O.P.No.786 of 2005, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Tribunal failed to take into consideration of the letters dated 07.02.1997 and 25.09.1997 by which, a sum of Rs.20 lakhs was agreed for escalation of the price. Hence, O.P. No.321 of 2007 stands dismissed. 9. Coming to O.P.No.786 of 2005, as rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the Tribunal failed to take into consideration of the letters dated 07.02.1997 and 25.09.1997 by which, a sum of Rs.20 lakhs was agreed for escalation of the price. Therefore, the admission being the best form of evidence, the award of Rs.17, 12, 715/- is enhanced to Rs.20,80,000/-. However, the remaining question to be considered is with respect to the profit overheads. A factual finding is given to the effect that both the parties attributed for the delay. The period having been concluded, there is no profit otherwise, which the petitioner is entitled to. In such view of the matter, the finding of the Tribunal cannot be faulted. 10. Insofar as the profit and overheads are concerned, the aforesaid finding of fact on the delay attributed to the petitioner insofar as materials and inadequacy of labour force, will have to be taken into consideration. Hence, this Court is of the view that the said finding also cannot be found fault with. It is also to be noted that even as per the letters dated 30.07.1997 and 25.09.1997, the other claims made by the petitioner were accordingly rejected by the second respondent. Therefore, once, the aforesaid letters are relied upon to make the petitioner entitled for a sum of Rs.20,80,000/- the same also will have to be made applicable for rejecting the claim of the petitioner under the profit overhead apart from the finding on fact with respect to the delay attributable to the parties. 11. In such view of the matter, O.P.No.321 of 2007 filed by the respondents stands dismissed. O.P.No.786 of 2005 filed by the petitioner stands allowed in part by granting price escalation of Rs.20,80,000/- as against Rs.17,12,715/-. For the abovesaid amount, the petitioner is entitled for the interest at the rate of 10% per annum from the date of the award. No costs.