Back
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.V.KRISHNA RAO, UMAMAHESWARAM
Koduri Krishnarao - Appellant
Versus
State OF A.P., Hyderabad - Respondent
Decided On : 07-06-61
FERRY RIGHTS - MONOPOLY RIGHTS - INFRINGEMENT - DAMAGES - LIMITATION - IMPLIED TERM IN CONTRACT - REPAIRS TO STEAMERS - REIMBURSEMENT - LOSS OF INCOME - BURDEN OF PROOF - GODAVARI ANTICUT - FERRY LIMITS - PUBLIC CONVENIENCE - NEW TRAFFIC.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, the lessee of the ferry rights and steamer service in the river Godavari, filed a suit against the State of Andhra Pradesh claiming damages for breach of contract and infringement of monopoly rights.
Finding of the Court:
1. The lease agreement did not contain an express term that the steamers should be handed over to the plaintiff in good working order. 2. There was an implied term in the contract that the lessor had to supply vessels in working order, although the repairs during the lease period were to be effected by the lessee. 3. The plaintiff's claim for reimbursement of the cost of repairs to the steamers was barred by limitation. 4. The plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant undertook to secure the supply of coal for running the steamers. 5. The plaintiff failed to prove that he incurred loss due to the defendant's alleged infringement of his monopoly rights by licensing private launches and allowing traffic on the Godavari anticut.
Issues: 1. Whether there was an implied term in the contract that the lessor had to supply vessels in working order? 2. Whether the plaintiff's claim for reimbursement of the cost of repairs to the steamers was barred by limitation? 3. Whether the defendant undertook to secure the supply of coal for running the steamers? 4. Whether the plaintiff incurred loss due to the defendant's alleged infringement of his monopoly rights by licensing private launches and allowing traffic on the Godavari anticut?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that there was an implied term in the contract that the lessor had to supply vessels in working order, although the repairs during the lease period were to be effected by the lessee. This was because the lessee was under the obligation to ply the steamers regularly almost immediately after the steamers were handed over to him, and this obligation was conceived in the public interest. 2. The court held that the plaintiff's claim for reimbursement of the cost of repairs to the steamers was barred by limitation. This was because there was no continuing wrong, and the cause of action for reimbursement arose as soon as the repairs were effected by the plaintiff. 3. The court held that the defendant did not undertake to secure the supply of coal for running the steamers. This was because the contract did not contain any such term, and the plaintiff failed to prove that the defendant had made any such promise. 4. The court held that the plaintiff failed to prove that he incurred loss due to the defendant's alleged infringement of his monopoly rights by licensing private launches and allowing traffic on the Godavari anticut. This was because the plaintiff failed to produce sufficient evidence to support his claim.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiffs appeal from the decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Eluru dismissing his suit to recover a sum of Rs. 1,92,192-8-0 as damages from the State of Andhra Pradesh. The plaintiff was the lessee for the period from 1-7-47 to 31-3-52 of the rights of working the Rajahmundry-Dowlaishwara steamer Dorothy and with country boats and of running a steam boat service in the river Godavari above the anticut with the Government-owned steamer Helen". He purchased the lease right at a publicauction held on 20-6-1947 by the Divisional Engineer (Highways) Kakinada in pursuance of the sale notification Ex. B-1 and entered into an agreement Ex. B-2 with the Government of the composite State of Madras for the payment of an annual rental of Rs. 22,500. 00. He brought the suit claiming damages on the ground that the Government had failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. The first head of his claim was for Rs. 5500. 00, in reimbursement of the cost of repairs carried out by him to the steamer Dorothy. His case is that the Government had to hand over to him to the steamer Dorothyand Helenin good working order and that it failed to do so. He effected the necessary repairs to the steamer Doorthy under the directions of the Asst. Engineer, Highways, Rajahmundry at a cost of Rs. 5500. 00. But the other steamer Helen required too heavy an investment for being put in working condition. The second head of his claim was for Rs. 1,01,750/ being the loss incurred by him on account of the Government not handing over the steamers Dorothy and Helen in good working order. This amount was made up of 3 items, namely Rs. 71,250. 00, 10,000/ and 20,500/ -. He averred in the plaint that the steamer Dorothy even after carrying out the repairs aforesaid was not in a safe working order during the flood seasons, that the Highways department were unable to obtain the necessary permits for the requisitequantity of coal, that for want of coal, that for want of coal even the steamer Dorothy could be used only once a week, that he was therefore obliged to hire three launches on a rent of Rs. 15,000 per annum and also a punt to maintain the ferry service and that during the cycloneof 1949 the steamer Dorothy sank and it was not salvaged by the Government. He claimed Rs. 71,250 for the hire of the three launches for the period of 4 year 9 months, Rs. 10,000 for the hire of the punt for five years, and Rs. 20,500 for the salaries and maintenance of the crew of Dorothy and Helen from 1-7-1947 to 30-11-1949 and from 1-7-1947 to 31-3-1952 respectively. The third head of his claim related to his complaint of the violation of his monopoly rights, by the Executive Engineer, issuing license for the plying of six launches between Rajahmundry and the Central Delta. He estimated the consequent loss in his income at Rs. 7500/ per year and claimed a sum of Rs. 35,625. 00. The fourth head of his claim for Rs. 20,000/ representing the loss in his income by the Government allowing public traffic over the Godavari anticut in the summer months of 1950, 1951 and 1952. He claimed half of the estimated fees realised by the Government, for permitting the vehicles to pass over the anticut, on the ground that he was deprived of his income for their transhipment. The fifth head of the claim was for Rs. 20,000/ being the interest on the aforesaid amounts from 1-4-1952 till 31-3-1955 the date of the plaint, but this need not detain us further as it has been given upin the appeal.
( 2 ) THE defendant contended in the written statement that the lease was of the ferry service and not of the two steamers there was no condition that the steamers should be given in good working order, that as a matter of fact they were handed over to the plaintiff in working order, and that under the terms of thelease agreement Ex. B-2, the renter had to effect all the necessary repairs to both the steamers were found unfit to ply in the river. There was no obligatio
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
