The court affirmed that damages for breach of contract must be substantiated with reasonable certainty, allowing for presumptive calculations in cases of difficulty in exact quantification.

1. This first appeal arises from a suit instituted by the Harda Electric Supply Company (Private) Limited (hereinafter called the Company) against the Municipal Committee, Harda (hereinafter called the Municipality) for recovery of Rs. 50,000/- as damages and for other alternative reliefs. The suit was resisted by the Municipality. The Additional District Judge, Hoshangabad, passed a decree for Rs. 40,000/-. The Municipality has filed this appeal; the Company has filed cross - objections.

2. The plaintiff's case was that by an agreement dated July 31, 1936, the Electro Mechanics Ltd., Bombay, agreed to supply the Municipality with electric energy for the purpose of pumping approximately 3 lac gallons of water daily. The agreement was to operate for 25 years. Of the terms and conditions contained in it one was that the water pumped per unit would not be below 1000 gallons on an average "at the specified head of 130 feet''. By another clause, it was agreed between the contracting parties that the Municipality would pay to the Company two annas per unit of energy consumed. On November 29, 1939, the said Electro Mechanics Ltd., assigned all their right, title and interest in the aforesaid agreement to the plaintiff - Company by virtue of a deed.
In or about the year 1944 the Municipality, by surreptitiously making or opening new tappings and by directly pumping water through them, lowered the pumping head so that the discharge of water per unit increased and the Company was consequently put to loss of income. When the Company became aware of the resultant breach of the agreement, on the part of the Municipality, it protested. After some correspondence, the Municipality, by its resolution No. 4 dated October 15, 1951, agreed to pay to the Company 20 per cent surcharge on the total units consumed every month. This was accepted by the Company. Later on the Municipality resiled from this subsequent agreement for additional payment (hereinafter called the supplementary agreement).
Calling it a concluded contract, the plaintiff - Company claimed a decree for Rs. 12,206/5/3 for the period between 1-4-1950 and 31-3-1953 and Rs. 20,667/8/9 for the period between 1-4-1953 and 30-9-1956, total Rs. 32,873/14/-. Alternatively, it claimed a sum of Rs. 40,000/- on the basis of the right to enhance rates under the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1948 . As a second alternative, the plaintiff claimed a decree for Rs. 48,707/1/3 as damages for loss of income caused by pumping larger quantities of water for fewer number of units. This claim was for the period between 1-4-1950 and 30-9-1956. In addition to this, the plaintiff claimed damages for injury to the machinery and plant doe to overloading : Rs. 2,650/1/9 actually expended on repairs and Rs. 9,349/14/3 as compensation for the shortening of life of the pumping sets by wear and tear, total Rs. 12,000/-.

3. The appellant resisted the suit, inter alia, on the ground that no new tappings were made by the Municipality. By the existence and working of the tappings the water head was not appreciably lowered, that is, to 80 or 85 feet, as alleged by the plaintiff. Even if there was any such lowering of the water head, it did not in any way offend against the terms of the a