PADMAVATHY AMMA Vs. SECRETARY KOZHIKODE DEVE AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal preferred against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judges Court, Kozhikkode in O.S. 470/1995, for realisation of the amount due under a contract. It is the case of the plaintiff that he was given a contract for levelling the ground for Karaparambu Housing Scheme as per an agreement dated 06/01/1978. A sum of Rs. 8,464/- was kept by the defendant as the retention amount on 24/03/1995. The defendant issued a letter asking the plaintiff to receive the balance amount due to him and he was handed over a cheque for Rs. 23,618/-. The Corporation instead of deducting 2%, calculated purchase tax @ 6.48 % which is against the Government Order M.S. 68/88/T.D. For the retention amount, no interest is also paid and therefore the plaintiff had laid down a claim for Rs. 64,270/-.

(2.) On the other hand, the defendant would contend that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any relief, and fully understanding the implications he had signed the final bill in full and final settlement of the claim, and therefore the suit is liable to be dismissed. On a consideration of the entire matters, the trial court dismissed the suit. It is against that decision the present appeal is filed.

(3.) The point that arises for determination in the appeal is whether the trial court has gone wrong in dismissing the suit against the facts and evidence available in the case. Point : The suit is one for realisation of amount. Admittedly, the plaintiff was a contractor under the Development Authority and he was given the work of levelling the ground for Karaparambu Housing Scheme. A perusal of the evidence available would show that the contractor was not able to work in time and therefore he had claimed the escalated rate and there was some arbitration proceedings, which ultimately terminated in dismissal. Now, the main grievance of the plaintiff is to the effect that the defendant had not given the retention amount with interest and he was not responsible for the extension of the time of the contract for completing the work and further that the purchase tax calculated is exorbitant and against the Government Order. So far as the amount is concerned, it is seen that a bill was prepared by the Kozhikkode Developmental Authority for Rs. 30,165/- and after deducting the income tax + surcharge and purchase tax of Rs. 6,251/-, final amount was fixed at Rs. 23,618/-. In page 7 of the bill, there is a noting that "Received Rs. ............... as a final payment in settlement of all demands". The contractor had signed it on 31/03/1995. The contractor has not signed this bill under protest. There is no case that he is an illiterate person. There is no case for him that under the specific facts and circumstances of the case, the Developmental Authority was in a position to exert undue influence or coercion, so as to make the contractor sign the bill for satisfaction of the claim. A contractor well versed in contract work as well as in protecting his rights had executed and affixed his signature in the bill accepting it to be the full and final settlement of the claim. As rightly done by the trial court, it is not possible to re-open this case as the contract work had taken place as early as on 1978 and the question of breach of contract to be decided after a period of 28 years will be an attempt in futility and therefore when a contractor after 17 years, affixed his signature admitting that the amount claimed is in full and final settlement of the claim, it has to be given a final seal. I also agree with the trial court.