1987 Supreme(Ker) 240
Judges : PARIPOORNAN,G.VISWANATHA IYER
S.S.NAIR - Appellant
Versus
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD - Respondent
Case No : A.S. No. 327 of 1986
Decided On : 06/23/1987
Advocates Appeared :
P. Gopalakrishnan Nair; D. Somasundaram; For Appellants
A suit for accounts will lie only when certain recognized jural relationships exist and when the amount due cannot be ascertained by the plaintiff.
Headnote:
Settlement of Accounts - Construction Contract - [Travancore Devaswom Board] - [Issue No. 4: Whether the defendant Board was liable to account to the plaintiff. Issue No. 5: Whether the claim in the plaint was vague.] - The court discussed the maintainability of the suit for settlement of accounts in a construction contract dispute. The court referred to previous cases and held that a suit for accounts will lie only when certain recognized jural relationships exist and when the amount due cannot be ascertained by the plaintiff. The court found that in this case, the plaintiff knew the amount of damages incurred and therefore, the suit for settlement of accounts was not maintainable. The lower court's decision to dismiss the suit was upheld.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for settlement of accounts and recovery of amounts due for the construction of pilgrim shelters. The defendant, Travancore Devaswom Board, committed various defaults and wrongfully terminated the contract, causing heavy loss to the plaintiff.
Finding of the Court:
The lower court held that the suit for accounts was not maintainable as the plaintiff knew the amount of damages incurred and therefore, the suit for settlement of accounts was not maintainable. The suit was dismissed.
Issues: The main issues were whether the defendant Board was liable to account to the plaintiff and whether the claim in the plaint was vague.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a suit for accounts will lie only when certain recognized jural relationships exist and when the amount due cannot be ascertained by the plaintiff. In this case, the plaintiff knew the amount of damages incurred and therefore, the suit for settlement of accounts was not maintainable.
Final Decision: The lower court's decision to dismiss the suit was upheld.
1. This appeal is by the plaintiff. The suit was one laid by him for settlement of accounts in regard to the construction of pilgrim shelters at Pamba and Sabarimala, for the defendant, namely the Travancore Devaswom Board, and for recovery of amounts adjudged due on such settlement.
2. Pursuant to invitation for tenders for the construction of pilgrim shelters at Pamba and Sabarimala, the plaintiff was entrusted with the work of constructing shelters Nos.1 to 10 at Pamba and 11 to 20 at Sabarimala. The work was to be completed within four months from 29-9-1978. The plaintiff moved to the site immediately after the work was awarded to him with ail his men and machinery for the purpose of beginning the work. However, the defendant committed default in various respects The site was not handed over free and unhindered to enable the plaintiff to start the work. The defendant did not obtain sanction to cut and remove the various timber trees on the site. The defendant was under an obligation to provide quarry for collection of rubble, but when the plaintiff started collecting the rubble, the forest authorities objected, which compelled the defendant to get sanction for opening another quarry. Sufficient quantity of rubble was not however available in the quarry so opened. All this led to delay in the execution of the work besides additional expenses. The quantity of earthwork to be done in relation to shed Nos.1 to 10 was far beyond the estimates envisaged by the parties. The nature of the soil was hard narikal in some areas, involving heavy extra expenditure towards labour charges. Defendant did not make available the necessary cement and M.S. rods as agreed to, which the plaintiff had therefore to procure elsewhere. Because of these defaults on the part of the defendant the work had to be done in a period different from that originally contemplated, involving heavy expenditure towards cost of materials, labour charges and other items, which the plaintiff bad to pay at the enhanced rates prevalent at the period when the work was actually done. Despite the defaults on their part, and after the plaintiff had completed about 90 per cent of the work undertaken by him, the defendant wrongfully terminated the contract causing heavy loss to the plaintiff. On account of these defaults of the defendant, plaintiff had incurred loss amounting to Rs. 3,20,000/- The plaintiff issued lawyer's notice for settlement of accounts, but the defendant did not need to the request, and hence the suit was filed as stated above for a decree for settlement of accounts and for realisation of the amount found due.
3. The defendant filed written statement contending inter alia that the suit, as framed, for settlement of accounts, was not maintainable. They also denied the various allegations of default, and breach of contract, on their part.
4. Issue No. 4 in the suit was whether the defendant Board was liable to account to the plaintiff. Issue No. 5 was whether the claim in the plaint was vague. These two issues were dealt with by the lower court, and it was found that the suit for accounts was not maintainable; when the plaintiff had given a specific amount as the loss be had incurred on account of the defendant's defaults. The lower court also held that a suit by a contractor for settlement of accounts was not maintainable against the person who awarded the contract to him. In view of these findings, the lower court did not go into the merits of the case relating to breach of contract, and dismissed the suit as not maintainable.
5. Counsel for the appellant challenges this decree of the lower court on the basis of the decisions of this court in KSEB v. Marshall Sons And Co. (India) Ltd., 1985 KLJ 930, and in CRP No. 1110 of 1969. The first of these cases was one where the respondent-plaintiff bad filed a suit against the Electricity Board for settlement of accounts in respect of transactions relating to supply of spares to the Board. One of the con