Back
2011 Supreme(Online)(KER) 14690
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, J
DR SASI ELOOR – Appellant
Versus
KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD – Respondent
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) 14453/2011
Contractual obligations for damages must be adhered to by parties, and failure to respond to notices can result in an acceptance of liability.
Headnote:
Compensation - Contractual Liability - KSEB Act Section List - The court upheld the liability for damages caused during construction, interpreting contractual obligations and compensation provisions within the context of the agreement, ruling that the Board acted within its rights.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a contractor, was ordered to pay compensation for damage allegedly caused during construction activities for KSEB. The petitioner contested the unilateral decision to impose the payment upon him, claiming no fault.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the contractor had contractual obligations to rectify any damages caused, and since he did not contest or respond to prior notices, the Board's action was justified. Therefore, no interference was required.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was liable for damages as determined by KSEB, despite contesting the Board's unilateral decision on compensation.
Ratio Decidendi: The decision establishes that contractual obligations to address damages are enforceable, and failure to respond to notices implies acceptance of responsibility.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT
1.Petitioner is a contractor who was awarded the work of excavation and construction of an underground tunnel by the KSEB. By Ext.P2 communication dated 18.4.2011, the petitioner has been required to satisfy an amount of Rs.3,66,000/- for payment of compensation to the aggrieved parties who sustained damage in connection with the work that was being performed by the petitioner, in view of the agreed stipulation and that the amount would be recovered from the next running bill of the petitioner.
2.The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was carrying out the operations pursuant to the work awarded, though there was some objection from the inhabitants nearby, alleging that their buildings were damaged to some extent; which according to th petitioner, is not true or correct. The contention of the petitioner is that the KSEB took up the matter directly and agreed to satisfy the compensation unilaterally and issued Ext.P2 order fixing the liability to the W.P.(C).14453/11 extent of Rs.3,66,000/- on the petitioner; which, according to the petitioner, is not correct or proper and hence is under challenge.
3.The learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Board submits with reference to the counter affidavit filed, that the writ petition has been filed only as an experimental one; more so, when the conditions in the Agreement stand rather admitted or undisputed. There is no case for the petitioner that the conditions of contract do not stipulate for payment of damages, if at all any such damage is caused to anybody in the course of operation being pursued by the petitioner pursuant to the contract. It is also stated that the petitioner was required to rectify the defect or to pay the damages by Ext.P4 notice dated 17.8.2010. In fact, the petitioner, despite receipt of the said notice (evidently the same having produced by the petitioner himself along with the writ petition), did not choose to submit any reply; nor did he take any positive steps to cure the defects. In the said circumstances, the proceedings were finalized by the Board by issuing Ext.P2 pursuant to the findings of the Committee constituted to assess the damages, pursuant to W.P.(C).14453/11 Ext.P1 order dated 4.8.2010. This Court finds that no interference is warranted and the writ petition is dismissed, without prejudice to the rights and liberties of the petitioner to pursue the grievance if any, by other appropriate proceedings, in accordance with law.
P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, Judge mrcs
