Back
2025 Supreme(Telangana) 493
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI, TIRUMALA DEVI EADA, JJ.
The Singareni Collieries Company Limited - Appellant
Vs.
V. Prabhakar Reddy - Respondent
Appeal Suit No. 256 of 2005
Decided On : 17-04-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : P SRI HARSHA REDDY SC FOR SINGARENI COLLIERIES CO LTD
For the Respondent: M JAYARAM REDDY
The plaintiff failed to prove excess payment to the contractor due to discrepancies in work quantity, which were influenced by natural factors.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Sections 96 and 100 - Appeal against judgment and decree - The plaintiff company engaged in mining sought recovery of excess payment made to the defendant contractor for excavation work, alleging discrepancies in work quantity. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding no evidence of excess payment. (Paras 1-14)
(B) Burden of Proof - The plaintiff bears the burden to prove the alleged excess payment and discrepancies in the contractor's work, which was not established through credible evidence. (Paras 12-13)
(C) Natural Factors - The court considered the impact of natural factors, such as rain, on the work site, which could affect measurements and levels. (Paras 12-13)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff company claimed that the defendant contractor was overpaid for excavation work due to erroneous measurements. The defendant denied the allegations, asserting that the final measurements were accurate and that any discrepancies were due to natural factors.
Findings of Court:
The trial court found that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claims of overpayment and discrepancies.
Issues: The main issues were whether the plaintiff overpaid the defendant and whether the trial court's judgment was sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiff did not meet the burden of proof to establish that excess payment was made, and the discrepancies claimed were not substantiated by credible evidence.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT:
Tirumala Devi Eada, J.
1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant-plaintiff, being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 18.11.2004 passed in O.S.No.04 of 2001 by the learned I Additional District Judge at Karimnagar (for short “the trial Court”).
2. The parties are addressed herein as they were arrayed in the suit before the trial Court for the sake of convenience and clarity.
3. The case of the plaintiff before the trial Court is that the plaintiff company is engaged in mining industry and it involves exploration, excavation, extracting and winning of coal. The defendant is a contractor and he was entrusted with the work of blast, hole drilling and earth work excavation of various rocks/earth cutting, loading, transportation, dumping etc., by using machines as per the scope of work at Ramagundam Open Cast Project-II. The order was placed on the defendant on 15.09.1998. As per the said order, the defendant executed 89% of the work worth 88.84 L.B.Cubic Meters and stopped the work on 31.07.1999 and the final bill was settled for a volume of 90.68 L.B.Cubic Meters. It is their case that on 14.02.2000, the survey team and check survey team, surveyed the work done by the defendant and recorded the measurements and the final bill was settled according to the said measurements. But subsequently, the plaintiff company called fresh tender for further excavation work and the work was entrusted to M/s.A.B.C.Engineering Work, Vijayawada on 12.02.2000. Subsequently, the plaintiff company conducted the re-survey of the work done by the defendant for the purpose of handing over the remaining work to ABC Company and they noticed some discrepancies in the quantity of the work done by the defendant, therefore, they conducted re-survey in the month of March, 2000 and their resurvey revealed that the data entered into the computer was erroneous and the same was informed to the defendant and was asked to attend the proposed joint survey on 16.04.2000. The defendant requested the plaintiff to postpone the survey till 25.04.2000, accordingly the same was postponed and on 19.04.2000, the plaintiff received a letter from the defendant questioning the authority of the plaintiff company in conducting joint survey and did not attend the survey on 25.04.2000. The plaintiff company proceeded with the resurvey and it was found that the initial team and check survey team had wrongly recorded the quantity of work as 90.68 L.B.Cubic Meters and that the excess volume of work was found to be 1.84 L.B.Cubic Meters and the value of the said work was estimated at Rs.56,75,520/- and that they have initiated disciplinary proceedings against the concerned officers. It is their contention that there was no defacing of levels due to natural factors like rains etc., The defendant completed the work in the month of July, 1999, while the re-survey was conducted in April, 2000 and they addressed a letter dated 21.06.2000 to the defendant informing him that they have paid an excess amount and they would recover the same from the running bills of other works being executed by the defendant. The defendant replied to the said letter requesting the plaintiff company not to recover the amount from the running bills and also filed two suits i.e. O.S.No.44 of 2000 and O.S.No.77 of 2000 before the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli and obtained temporary injunction restraining the plaintiff from recovering the said amounts from the running bills. Therefore, the plaintiff’s grievance is that 1.84 L.B.Cubic Meters was erroneously recorded in excess to the work executed by the defendant and thus, the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the sum paid for the said work. Hence, the suit.
4. The defendant filed written statement denying the averments of the plaint. The defendant further stated that he undertook similar works over a period of time and completed them without any adverse remarks and that he was executing similar works at the time of filing his written statement
