K. HARIDAS Vs. KERALA WATER AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is aggrieved with the recovery proceedings, initiated as per Ext.P1, claiming an amount of Rs. 10,57,670/ -, which according to the respondents is the damages payable by the petitioner, to the first respondent herein.

(2.) THE brief facts to be noticed, even as per the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent in the above case is that, the petitioner was awarded a work, of supply of 3 numbers of chlorinators, as per agreement No. 31/95 -96/SE dated 16.04.1996, by the Superintendent Engineer, Public Health Circle Kochi -11. There is no dispute that the said chlorinators were, in fact erected at site. The contention raised is with respect to the petitioner having not turned up, for repairs, during the guarantee period; which as is indicated in Ext.R1(a) is 5 years.

(3.) HOWEVER , there is nothing on record to show that any recovery proceedings were initiated within the limitation period. It is also pertinent that the petitioner had filed reply to the counter, wherein, it has been specifically denied that any request for repairs were notified to the petitioner, within the guarantee period. The respondent has not produced any evidence to counter the said contention or substantiate the fact.