KERALA WATER AUTHORITY Vs. JOSEPH THOMAS CONTRACTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A decree for money is under challenge by the defendants in the suit.

(2.) Defendants invited tender for transportation of rigs for drilling of tube well at Kainakary, from Nedumudy Jetty and bring it back to Nedumudy after the work is over. As per Ext.A1 letter dated 02.02.1992 of the 2 nd defendant, tender submitted by the plaintiff was accepted. Exhibit A2 is the agreement dated 06.03.1992 executed between the plaintiff and the Kerala Water Authority. Plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs.10,050/- as security amount. It turned out that the rigs were not transported by the plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges default on the part of the defendants for the nonperformance of the contract. According to the plaintiff, part of the work as agreed to in Ext.A2 was done by the plaintiff and the suit is laid claiming amount for the works done and for return of the security deposit. Essentially, the work done, as claimed by the plaintiff is strengthening of the existing landing area/platforms at Nedumudy and Kainakri which are item nos.1 and 3 in the schedule to Ext.A1 Agreement.

(3.) As per Ext.A1, the plaintiff was to commence the work within a week from getting necessary instructions from the 2 nd defendant. Exhibit A3 is the telegram dated 06.01.1993 giving instructions in the said regard. Exhibit A4 is the letter dated 22.02.1993 issued by the plaintiff to the 2 nd defendant, the contents of which are very crucial with regard to the claim in the suit. The relevant portion of Ext.A4 is extracted hereunder: