IMPORTANT POINT
A party's acceptance of contract terms and payments without objection can bar subsequent claims for additional amounts or contesting penalties imposed under the agreement.

JUDGMENT :

Venuthurumalli Gopala Krishna Rao, J.

The unsuccessful plaintiff in the suit filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26-02-1999 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur, West Godavari District, in O.S.No.72 of 1989. The suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.94,392-46 ps. with future interest from the defendants/The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) and for costs of the suit.

2. The case of the plaintiff as narrated in the plaint, in brief, is as follows:

(a) It is pleaded that the plaintiff is the owner of bus bearing registration No.TNG-1299. The plaintiff entered into an agreement on 29-01-1986 with the APSRTC giving her bus on hire for plying on the route specified by the defendants. The vehicle of the plaintiff operated from Jangareddigudem bus depot to Buttaigudem from 04-02-1986 to 31-12-1986. The plaintiff was told that the distance between two points is 10 kilometers and the defendants accordingly paid hire charges at Rs.2-40 ps. per km., for the said period. The plaintiff obtained actual measurement of the distance between two points and it is 11.3 kms. The vehicle of the plaintiff cover the distance of 270.8 kms., on each day. On the other hand, the defendants paid hire charges for 250 kms., per day only. The plaintiff is entitled for differential amount shown in plaint A schedule with interest.

(b) It is further pleaded that the defendants illegally levied fines and penalties. No opportunity was given to the plaintiff while imposing fines and penalties. The defendants have given a guarantee to the plaintiff at 6,000 kms., in a month. The vehicle of the plaintiff cover a distance of 4,560 kms., only in the month of September, 1986. The defendants are liable to pay at Rs.2-40 ps per km., for the balance of guaranteed kms., shown in plaint D schedule with interest. The defendants made late payments to the plaintiff and that the defendants are liable to pay interest on the delayed payments shown in plaint B schedule. The plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.94,392- 46 ps. Hence, the suit.

3. Brief averments in the written statement filed by the 1st defendant/ APSRTC, which is adopted by the defendants 2 to 4, are as follows:

(a) It is admitted that the vehicle of the plaintiff bearing registration No.TNG-1299 on hire and that an agreement was entered into on 29-01-1986. The plaintiff was explained the reasons for imposing fines and penalties on each occasion. The plaintiff simply noted and did not raise any objection. She received the payment without raising an objection. At no point of time, the plaintiff raised objection. The plaintiff failed to supply the vehicle to the defendants. Hence, the defendants are not liable to pay tax for the days for which the plaintiff did not supply the vehicle. As per terms of agreement, the defendants are entitled to deduct tax for non-supply of the vehicle. The defendants are authorized under the provisions of the agreement to deduct tax for those days for which the vehicle did not supply.

(b) It is further contended that due to stoppage of the vehicle and due to strike by the employees, there was shortage in operating the guaranteed kms. Due to checking and cross-checking of the bills, there may be some delays and it is not intentional. The plaintiff is, therefore, not entitled for interest on delayed payments. So also, the claim of the plaintiff for withholding the amount under fines and penalties from January, 1987 to December, 1988 is untenable. The plaintiff did not raise any protest and accepted the payment during the said period.

(c) It is further contended that the vehicle was sent to Eluru for inspection. The plaintiff did not put up any claim with the defendants for plying the vehicle from Kovvur to Eluru for inspection. The plaintiff is, therefore, not entitled to any amount under the said head.

(d) It is further contended that the plaintiff is also not entitled for damages on the ground that the vehicle p