KERALA WATER AUTHORITY Vs. JOY.K.MATHEW

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The decree for damages is under challenge by the defendants in the suit.

(2.) On 22/9/1994, the plaintiff entered into Ext.A1 contract with the defendants for construction of an inspection bungalow. The period fixed for completion was 12 months. Admittedly, the plaintiff did not complete the construction within the period. Subsequently the defendants completed the work employing another contractor. According to the plaintiff, the default occurred due to the conduct of the defendants in varying the plan and also the delay in providing the varied plan. The plaintiff claimed that there has been enhancement in the cost and is entitled for hike in rates. The suit is for the value of the works done by the plaintiff.

(3.) The defendants denied the plaint allegations. It was contended that the plaintiff is at fault for having committed breach of the contract. The alleged variation in plan etc was denied.