PRABHA SRIDEVAN, J. :- The defendant is the appellant. The plaint averments are as follows :-

The defendant was appointed as the Procurement-cum-Hulling Agent for the plaintiff Corporation for 1984 Kuruvai' Season. The appointment order is dated 27-7-1984. The defendant deposited a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as security deposit on 25-7-1984. An agreement was entered into between the parties on 26-7-1984. To ensure safe custody of the paddy entrusted with the defendant, an Officer of the plaintiff Corporation was appointed as the Double Lock Officer for the defendant's godown, in which the paddy was stored. As per the terms of the agreement, the defendant will receive the paddy and store the same in his godown, and it was kept under double lock system from 14-11-1984 to 16-3-1985. A total quantity of 6157 bags of paddy weighing 410.463 M.Ts. was stored under the double lock system. Out of the said 6157 bags of paddy, 415 bags were of Super Fine Quality, 2070 bags were of Fine Quality and the balance 3672 bags were Coarse variety. The parties had agreed that the defendant would hull the paddy and deliver the resultant rice at the rate of out-turn for conversion fixed by the plaintiff Corporation for the different varieties of paddy. The defendant agreed to pay the market value for the short delivery of rice calculated with reference to the out-turn agreed upon. The defendant also agreed to deliver the rice within seven days of receipt of the paddy from the Corporation. Out of the paddy stored in the defendant's godown under the double lock system, the defendant was entrusted by the Double Lock Officer, the following quantities of paddy :

Bags Weight

Super Fine Variety 415 27.050 M.Ts.

Fine Variety 2045 134.815 M.Ts.

Coarse Variety 3517 237.098 M.Ts.

Total 5977 398.963 M.Ts.

The aforesaid quantity of paddy was entrusted with the defendant in the period between 26-12-1984 and 21-5-1985. The defendant was bound to deliver the paddy as boiled rice. The norms fixed by the plaintiff Corporation, which were accepted by the defendant, entitled the plaintiff to receive 66% out-turn for Coarse Variety paddy and 68% for the other varieties. According to the calculation of the plaintiff Corporation, as regards the Super Fine Variety, as against the quantity of 27.050 M.Ts. of paddy, applying 68% out-turn, the defendant ought to have delivered 18.394 M.Ts. but the quantity actually delivered was 7.977 M.Ts. and the shortage was 10.363 M.Ts. As regards the Fine Variety, as against the quantity of 134.815 M.Ts. of paddy, applying 68% out-turn, the defendant ought to have delivered 91.674 M.Ts. but the quantity actually delivered was 83.155 M.Ts. and the shortage was 8.419 M.Ts. As regards the Coarse Variety, as against the quantity of 237.098 M.Ts. of paddy, applying 66% out-turn, the defendant ought to have delivered 156.484 M.Ts. but the quantity actually delivered was 133.680 M.Ts. and the shortage was 22.804 M.Ts. Thus, the total shortage was 41.490 M.Ts., for which the defendant was liable to pay the market value. For the short delivery of Super Fine Variety, the defendant was liable to pay at the rate of 457.90 paise per quintal; for the Fine Variety, he was liable to pay at the rate of 446.10 paise per quintal; and for the Coarse Variety, he was liable to pay at the rate of 434.20 paise per quintal. Calculated thus, the defendant was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 47,470.48 towards the value of short delivery of Super Fine Variety, Rs. 37,557.14 towards the value of short delivery of Fine Variety and Rs. 99,014.96 towards the value of short delivery of Coarse Variety of paddy. In all, the defendant was liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,84,042.58 for the short delivery. Further, a total quantity of 410.463 M.Ts. of paddy was stored in the godown of the defendant under the single Lock System and the defendant was responsible for safe custody of the said quantity of paddy. After delivery of 398.963 M.Ts. of paddy to the defendant for conversion as rice