The main legal point established in the judgment is that a lsight deficiency in the quantity of goods supplied may not entitle the buyer to reject the goods, and the seller may be entitled to claim damages for the loss suffered due to the breach of contract.

Ramakrishnan, J.

The appeal and the memorandum of cross objection are filed respectively by the plaintiff and defendant in the suit.

2. Plaintiff and defendant are both firms carrying on business in rice and other food grains in Mattancherry and Calicut respectively. According to the plaintiff, defendant entered into two con tracts on-19-7-1975 with them for the purchase of three wagons each of Nepal rice. The first contract was for three wagons at the rate of Rs.362/- per quintal, biotic, ready R.R. from' Jayamgur 'or' Jogbani 'to Calicut. The second contract was for three wagons again, at the rate of Rs.365/- per quintal biotic, ready R.R. from 'Jogbani' to Calicut. The other terms and conditions of the two contracts were identical. The payment was agreed to be made against R/R in cash or by T.T. at Cochin through bank. There was an agreement to pay interest from the date of contract at 18% and also bank commission at 50 No per hundred rupee. The defendant also paid a total amount of Rs. 18,000/- as advance, at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per wagon. The three wagons forwarded under the first contract and the two wagons forwarded under the second contract as per Invoice Nos. 111 to 115 were taken delivery of by the defendant on due payment by T.T. on Indian Overseas Bank, Cochin-2. However, the third wagon of rice forwarded as per invoice No.116 was not taken delivery of by the defendant. The arrival of the goods on 27-9-1975 was intimated to the defendant duly. The defendant refused to take delivery alleging that 45 bags of rice were completely wet and damaged and that there was shortage in many other bags. They also alleged that the quality of the rice was inferior to the agreed quality. According to the plain tiff the reasons alleged by the defendant for their refusal to take delivery were all false and the real reason for refusal was the fall in prices which occured unexpectedly after the contract was entered into. The plaintiff sent a telegram followed by Ext. A3 letter dated 30-9-1975 requesting the defendant to 'take delivery for which the defendant sent Ext.A4 telegram on 1-10-1975 expressing "their inability to take delivery on the above mentioned false and frivolous grounds. Since the defendant failed to take delivery, the plaintiff arranged to take delivery of the goods by effecting payment and had got the goods sold through M/s. Radhakrishna Erady, Merchant, Calicut on Commission basis at the risk and responsibility of the defendant, after due intimation to them. The goods were so sold on 9-10-1975 and the net amount realised was Rs.45,922/67 as evidenced by Ext. A8 sale account.

3. Plaintiff admitted in the plaint itself that as per Ext. A7 resolution passed by the Calicut Food Grains and Provision Merchants Association the plaintiff is bound to give a reduction of Rs. 12/50 per bag from the contract price of the goods. It was further averred that the plaintiff has informed the defendant about their readiness and willingness to give such deduction from the' invoice amount immediately after Ext.A7 resolution was brought to their notice.

4. Plaintiff claimed in the plaint an amount of Rs.10,061/51 as damages for the loss suffered by the plaintiff as a result of the breach of contract committed by the defendant with interest at 6% from the date of the suit. The, amount claimed in the plaint represented the difference between the contract price of one wagon of rice and the net amount realised out of the sale of the said wagon of rice as evidenced by Ext. A8. The said amount was determined, after giving credit to Rs.3,000/- received as advance and Rs.2,000/- liable to be deducted as per Ext.A7 resolution.

5. The defendant denied the existence of the two contracts as alleged in the plaint. However, they admitted that they had purchased five wagons of Nepal rice from the plaintiff during the relevant period. According to the defendant, the plaintiff s agent used to offer them separate consignments of rice and they use