KODURI KRISHNARAO Vs. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs appeal from the decree of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Eluru dismissing his suit to recover a sum of Rs.1,92,192-8-0 as damages from the State of Andhra Pradesh. The plaintiff was the lessee for the period from 1-7-47 to 31-3-52 of the rights of working the Rajahmundry-Dowlaishwara steamer Dorothy and with country boats and of running a steam boat service in the river Godavari above the anticut with the Government-owned steamer Helen". He purchased the lease right at a publicauction held on 20-6-1947 by the Divisional Engineer (Highways) Kakinada in pursuance of the sale notification Ex. B-1 and entered into an agreement Ex. B-2 with the Government of the composite State of Madras for the payment of an annual rental of Rs. 22,500.00. He brought the suit claiming damages on the ground that the Government had failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the lease. The first head of his claim was for Rs.5500.00, in reimbursement of the cost of repairs carried out by him to the steamer Dorothy. His case is that the Government had to hand over to him to the steamer Dorothyand Helenin good working order and that it failed to do so. He effected the necessary repairs to the steamer Doorthy under the directions of the Asst. Engineer, Highways, Rajahmundry at a cost of Rs. 5500.00. But the other steamer Helen required too heavy an investment for being put in working condition. The second head of his claim was for Rs. 1,01,750/ being the loss incurred by him on account of the Government not handing over the steamers Dorothy and Helen in good working order. This amount was made up of 3 items, namely Rs. 71,250.00, 10,000/ and 20,500/-. He averred in the plaint that the steamer Dorothy even after carrying out the repairs aforesaid was not in a safe working order during the flood seasons, that the Highways department were unable to obtain the necessary permits for the requisitequantity of coal, that for want of coal, that for want of coal even the steamer Dorothy could be used only once a week, that he was therefore obliged to hire three launches on a rent of Rs. 15,000 per annum and also a punt to maintain the ferry service and that during the cycloneof 1949 the steamer Dorothy sank and it was not salvaged by the Government. He claimed Rs. 71,250 for the hire of the three launches for the period of 4 year 9 months, Rs.10,000 for the hire of the punt for five years, and Rs. 20,500 for the salaries and maintenance of the crew of Dorothy and Helen from 1-7-1947 to 30-11-1949 and from 1-7-1947 to 31-3-1952 respectively. The third head of his claim related to his complaint of the violation of his monopoly rights, by the Executive Engineer, issuing license for the plying of six launches between Rajahmundry and the Central Delta. He estimated the consequent loss in his income at Rs.7500/ per year and claimed a sum of Rs. 35,625.00. The fourth head of his claim for Rs. 20,000/ representing the loss in his income by the Government allowing public traffic over the Godavari anticut in the summer months of 1950, 1951 and 1952. He claimed half of the estimated fees realised by the Government, for permitting the vehicles to pass over the anticut, on the ground that he was deprived of his income for their transhipment. The fifth head of the claim was for Rs.20,000/ being the interest on the aforesaid amounts from 1-4-1952 till 31-3-1955 the date of the plaint, but this need not detain us further as it has been given upin the appeal.

(2.) The defendant contended in the written statement that the lease was of the ferry service and not of the two steamers there was no condition that the steamers should be given in good working order, that as a matter of fact they were handed over to the plaintiff in working order, and that under the terms of thelease agreement Ex. B-2, the renter had to effect all the necessary repairs to both the steamers were found unfit to ply in the river. There was no obligation on the defendant to arrange for the supply of coal. It was a term in the agreement that the plaintiff shall not claim compensation on any account See clause 36 of Ex. B-2. There was no infringement of the plaintiffs ferry right by the licensing of boats to carry passengers and goods from Rajahmundry and Dowlaishwaram to the various places in the Central Delta. The Godavari anticut is beyond the ferry limits and the plaintiff was not prejudicied by allowing vehicles to pass over the anticut. The defendant also disputed the correctness of the amounts claimed and pleaded that the claim for the damages was also barred by limitation.

(3.) The learned Subordinate Judge held on a constuction of Exs. B-1and B-2 that it was not one of the conditions of the lease that the steamers had to be handed over to the plaintiff in good working order and on the other hand, under the terms of the lease, the leassee had to effect the necessary repairs to the steamers during the lease period at his own cost. In these circumstances, although as a matter of fact the steamers were not in running condition when they were handed over in running condition when they were handed over by the Highways department to the plaintiff, that fact did not entitle the painiff to claim the cost of repairing them. The plaintiff had failed to prove his further case that the Assistant Engineer of the department assured him that the cost of repairs would be paid by the Goverment. Owing to the absence of vouchers or corroborative evidence and the plaintiffs non-production of his account-books, it was not possible to hold that Rs.5,500.00 claim was the correct cost of repairs. For these reasons, the learned Subordinate Judge negatived the plaintiffs claim to recovere the Rs. 5500.00.With regard to the next head of the plaintiffs claim, the learned Subordinate Judge held that as it was not the duty of the Highways Department to effect necessary repairs to the steamers and as the supply of coal was stopped by the Director of Controlled Commodities only owing to the plaintiffs failure to submit monthly returns, the plaintiff was not entitled to ask for compensation for having hired private launches and the Government punt to run the ferry. The plaintiff had deliberately suppressed his accounts and the evidence on his own side showed that the costs of coal required for daily consumption by both the steamers was Rs. 100.00 at the time. The result of the evidence was that the plaintiff had miserably failed to establish the loss, illegally caused by his resorting to the alternative method of running the ferry. He had also failed to establish the alleged payment to the crew of the two steamers. For these reasons, he was not entitled to Rs. 1,01,750.00 claimed by him. As to the alleged infringement of his monopoly rights, there was no evidence that the issue of permits to the six private launches caused any prejudice to his rights under the lease or a loss in his income. There was a similar lacuna in the evidence with regard to the fourth head of his claim. Further the Godavari anicut was found by the learned Subordinate Judge to be not within the ferry limits. In the result, the learned Subordinate Judge negatived the entire claim of the plaintiff and dismissed the suit.