Claims Related To Water Infiltration In Ferry Terminal Structures
1. Introduction: Water Infiltration in Ferry Terminal Structures
(a) Overview
Ferry terminal structures—including piers, boarding platforms, waiting halls, and structural supports—are exposed to marine environments. Water infiltration in these structures can occur through:
Cracks in reinforced concrete decks, walls, or slabs
Defective joints or expansion joints
Poorly installed or failing waterproofing membranes
Substandard construction materials or inadequate curing
Corrosion of embedded reinforcement leading to spalling
Consequences include:
Structural degradation and reduced durability
Safety hazards for passengers
Increased maintenance costs
Potential delays or operational shutdowns
(b) Nature of Disputes
Disputes arise when:
Contractors are accused of defective construction or installation
Subcontractors or suppliers provide faulty materials
Water infiltration leads to premature structural damage
Owners claim repair costs, delays, and liquidated damages
Due to technical complexity, such disputes are often referred to arbitration rather than litigation.
2. Arbitrability of Water Infiltration Claims
Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, disputes over water infiltration are fully arbitrable because they involve:
Contractual compliance and construction quality
Rectification obligations under defect liability clauses
Calculation of damages for repair costs and operational losses
Liability for latent defects discovered post-handover
Even in cases involving government ports, PPP terminals, or public sector ferry operators, arbitration is commonly employed due to the technical and commercial nature of the dispute.
3. Technical and Evidentiary Considerations
Tribunals typically rely on:
Structural and architectural design documents (waterproofing details, joint specifications)
Construction quality records (concrete mix, curing logs, joint installation)
Material specifications and test reports (membrane quality, sealants, admixtures)
Site inspections and monitoring reports
Non-destructive testing (cover meter, rebound hammer, crack mapping, water penetration tests)
Expert opinions from civil, structural, and marine engineers
Tribunals generally defer to expert technical judgment when determining cause and responsibility.
4. Key Legal Issues
Material Deficiency vs. Workmanship Deficiency – Did water infiltration arise from defective materials or poor installation?
Latent vs. Patent Defects – Are defects apparent at handover or develop later due to environmental exposure?
Contractual Specification Compliance – Were waterproofing, drainage, and structural requirements met?
Responsibility Allocation – Contractor, subcontractor, or design engineer?
Rectification Obligations – Cost and method of repair, including shutdown impacts on operations.
5. Leading Case Laws
1. McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd.
Principle: Arbitrators are final judges of facts and technical evidence.
Relevance: Tribunals can determine whether water infiltration constitutes a contractual defect.
2. Associate Builders v. Delhi Development Authority
Principle: Court interference is limited to perversity, illegality, or public policy violation.
Relevance: Awards based on expert assessment of infiltration and waterproofing failures are generally upheld.
3. Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co. Ltd. v. NHAI
Principle: Arbitrators must strictly adhere to contractual terms.
Relevance: Contractor liability arises if waterproofing or construction does not meet contract specifications.
4. J.G. Engineers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India
Principle: Claims and counterclaims for defective execution and rectification costs are arbitrable.
Relevance: Owners can recover repair costs and liquidated damages for water infiltration.
5. K.N. Sathyapalan v. State of Kerala
Principle: Contractors are liable for defects unless caused by employer-supplied designs or materials.
Relevance: Contractors cannot avoid liability if infiltration results from poor workmanship or material misuse.
6. Dyna Technologies Pvt. Ltd. v. Crompton Greaves Ltd.
Principle: Arbitral awards must contain intelligible reasoning.
Relevance: Awards resolving water infiltration disputes must explain causation and the basis for rectification costs.
7. Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Ltd. v. Dewan Chand Ram Saran
Principle: Completion certificates do not bar claims for latent defects.
Relevance: Water infiltration discovered post-commissioning remains actionable under defect liability periods.
6. Remedies Typically Awarded
Arbitral tribunals may award:
Repair or rectification costs for waterproofing or structural restoration
Recovery of losses due to operational shutdown
Adjustment of contract payments or liquidated damages
Declaratory relief regarding contractor or subcontractor responsibility
Such awards are enforceable under the Arbitration Act, 1996, with limited grounds for judicial interference.
7. Public Policy Considerations
Ferry terminals are critical public infrastructure, so structural integrity is a public safety concern.
Arbitration allows technical evaluation by experts to determine liability while respecting contractual frameworks.
Courts uphold awards based on credible expert analysis, absent procedural impropriety or violation of public policy.
8. Conclusion
Arbitration is especially appropriate for claims involving water infiltration in ferry terminal structures because it:
Handles complex technical evidence on materials, construction, and marine exposure
Resolves latent and patent defect disputes
Upholds contractual obligations and defect liability provisions
Minimizes judicial intervention in technically complex infrastructure projects
Indian arbitration jurisprudence consistently supports arbitral authority in construction defect disputes, including waterproofing and infiltration issues in waterfront infrastructure.
RELATED Blog
comments