MOIDU Vs. KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Judgment of the court was delivered by Subramonian Poti, J. - Since we are holding in this appeal that the suit ought to have been dismissed by the court below on the plea of limitation raised by the defendant, we are stating only the facts which are necessary to appreciate the above said plea.

(2.) The defendant in the suit, who is the appellant here, entered into a contract with the Kerala State Electricity Board, the plaintiff, for manufacture and delivery at Kuthuparamba of 1,000 R.C.C. Poles 24 ft. long. Later the work relating to 500 more poles of the same specifications was also awarded by the plaintiff under the same terms and conditions and to the earlier agreement of 20th March 1968 a supplemental schedule was signed by the parties on 15th July 1969. The work was completed on 6th March 1970. The plaintiff was to supply to the contractor cement and M.S. rods required for the work and the value of such supply was to be recovered from the contractor's bill. The surplus materials that remained with the defendant after completion of the work was to be returned to the plaintiff at his store and receipts obtained from the Store Keeper. The case of the plaintiff was that the defendant did not return the surplus materials. A registered letter was sent to the defendant by the plaintiff on 14th December 1970 and this was followed by another letter dated 3rd March 1971. To this the defendant replied on 19th March 1971 denying his liability to the claim for return of M.S. rods as demanded in the notice. The plaintiff thereafter sued the defendant for the value of 11426 kgs. of M.S. rods, 259 kgs. of cement and 1541 empty gunny cement bags. Defendant disputed the liability on the plea that there was no excess with him for return, that the plaintiff was at any rate not entitled to calculate fine or storage charges on the value of the materials supplied and further that the suit itself was barred by limitation. The suit was filed on 18th March 1974. The plaintiff had pleaded in the plaint an acknowledgment letter of the defendant dated 19th March 1971 and the suit was within three years of the date of the said letter.

(3.) The court below found that defendant was liable to return the materials as claimed by the plaintiff, that the amounts claimed as storage charges and the fine were reasonable and that the suit was not barred by limitation.