Parties must adhere to contract terms, and failure to substantiate claims of loss due to alleged breaches leads to liability for unpaid dues.

JUDGMENT

The Rubber Board, the defendant in O.S. No. 318 of 2011 on the files of the Principal Sub Judge, Kottayam, a suit for realisation of an amount of Rs. 2,71,869/- instituted by the respondent herein, is the appellant.

2. The respondent/plaintiff and the defendant/appellant had entered into a contract pursuant to a tender floated for the construction of Labour Lines at the Rubber Research Institute of India, Kottayam. On 04.03.2008, the plaintiff and the defendant executed Ext. B3, under which the work had to be completed within six months in accordance with the specification and schedule appended to the agreement. The plaintiff alleges that the work of the basement was completed before 15^th October, 2008, and he requested part payment in October itself. The defendant had paid an amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- on 02.09.2008, but the balance amount of Rs. 1,38,447/- was paid only on 12.05.2009. The plaintiff would allege that the delay in making payment had affected further construction. It is also pleaded that after the commencement of the work, the plaintiff was requested to construct a side retention wall over and above the work allotted as per Ext.B3 agreement, whereby the plaintiff was required to do the work amounting to 476.18 m³ instead of 176 m³ as originally agreed between the parties.

3. It is alleged that, though the plaintiff requested enhancement of the rates based on the revision made by the PWD, the defendant did not accept the same and instead issued Ext.A3 letter dated 06.07.2009 to restart the work. The plaintiff would allege that during that period, bricks were not available for construction, and therefore, the plaintiff couldn't restart the work as required. The plaintiff then informed the defendant about his inability to restart the work and expressed his willingness to take the final measurements for the work already completed.

Accordingly, the defendant had taken the final measurements on 13.07.2009. The plaintiff further submits that thereafter, the defendant, without inviting any tender, had entrusted the work to a person by the name Reji T. Chacko. It is pleaded that the defendant had enhanced the rates by giving undue favour to the second contractor.

4. The plaintiff claimed an amount of Rs. 80,245.30/-

towards the work completed by him. He also claimed the return of the security deposit to the tune of Rs.1,03,450/- and a further amount of Rs.25,000/- towards the value of tools illegally detained by the defendant. Thus, on the date of the suit, the plaintiff claimed an amount of Rs. 2,51,030/- with further interest at the rate of 12%

per annum.

5. The defendant filed a written statement contending that the plaintiff was awarded the work as per a work order dated 13.02.2008, calling upon him to execute an agreement within seven days and directing him to start the work within two weeks and to complete the same within six months thereof. It was stated that the plaintiff executed the agreement only on 04.03.2008, and the work was started only on 01.06.2008. As per the agreement, the date of completion of the work was 27.08.2008, but even the construction of the foundation was completed only on 15.10.2008. It is admitted by the defendant that during the progress of the work, an additional quantity of work was also directed to be done at the same rates and thus 476.18 m³ of random rubble masonry work had to be carried out. It is submitted by the defendant that an amount of Rs. 1,40,000/- was paid to the plaintiff on 02.09.2008, but after the completion of the foundation work in October 2008, the plaintiff did not go ahead with the construction. After repeated requests, the defendant again paid an amount of Rs.1,40,000/-, which was released on 09.0