The High Court · 2025

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI P SRI HARSHA REDOY (SC [:)R SINGARENI coLLIERtES CO LTD) Counsel for the Respondents: L HARISH The Court made the following: JUDGMENT ./, THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE K' SUJANA APPEAL SUIT No.913 of 1999 JUDGMENT: Challenging Lhe order dated O7 12'199a passed tn O.S.No.13 of 1992 by the learned Senior Civil Judge' Asifabad' llle presen[ appeal suit is filcd The brief facts of the casc are t hat the plaintiff is a coal 2. transport contractor [or the defclldelnt company under a contract from July 199 1 to July 1993 He owns a tipper vehicle bearing No'AEK-2298 '"vhich was damaged on November lg l20, lgg | , u'hen a coal bunker unexpectedly fell on it u,hile sl'ationed under thc bunkcr for coal loading The plaintiff reported the incidcnt to the deferldant' and both parties assessed the damages The plaintifi claims that the defendantneitherrepairedthevehiclenorcompensatedhim for waiting chargcs, r,'hich caused a daily loss of Rs 1 '500/ - from November 19, 1991, until repairs were completed on December 27 , lggl ' Thc plaintiff spent Rs' | '67 '219 I - on repairs and sustained additional losses due to waiting charges of Rs.55,5OO for 37 days Hc sold damaged parts as scrap for 2 sKs,J / .S.No.9I 3 of 1999 I q Rs.5,0OO and is now claiming a total amount r:l F s 2,17 ,7 19 I from the rkrfendant.

3. Hori,t'r'er, the defendant acknowle<lgcs I to plarntifls contr:lctor statLrs and owncrship of the vehi lr ltut clenics responsrbility for thc accident. They claim the r l rl trunkcr fcll accidentallv ancl the damage was assessed r Rs.40,0OO/ -. Thc delenrlant offered to rcpair the vehicle ut is rt'orksho;:, but thc F,LrintilT rcfused and chose to repair i rirrrsell. The dt:lenclan rlisputes the rcpair cost clerirned b1' ,r 1tl:rintill'anc1 denies anv obligation to pav u'aiting charges. 1,argued ti-rat the plaintiffs claim is excessive and that, p( thc contract agreement. rhe defendant is not liable lor zrcci<l r ts ltevond its control. The dcfcndant :tsserts that the plail I should seck compcns:rt ion from his insurance company ar 1 rcrlur_'sts the dismissal of the suit.

4. Basing on the above plcadings, thc trirr }trrrt frami:d two issut:s zrnd on lrehalf ol the plaintiffs i.t pWs.l and 2 werc cxamlned and trx.A I to A27 are marke, r DWs. 1 and 2 are examincd and trxs-B1 to 87 were marked , r behall of the defcndan ts. w 3 sKs,J A.S.No.913 of 1999

5. After examining the evidence, the trial Court, uide order daLed. 07.72.1998, partly allowed the suit hotding that the damage caused to the plaintitfs vehicle was a direct consequence of the defendant company's negligence in maintaining the bunker on its premises. Relying on exhibits such as E;x. A-2, A-25 to A 27 and joint inspection reports, the trial Court concludcd that the damage was not remotc buL arose durirrg thc discharge of contractual obligations lt u'as obser-ved that the delendant did not fail to respond to multiple notices sent by the plaintiff, nor did it protest the quotations issued for repairs. The oral offer to get the vehicle repaired or pay Rs.40,O0O/- was unsubstantiated by n'ritten communication and was therefore considered insufficiet-rt to refute the plaintiffls claim.

6. Further, the trial Court accepted the claim of the plaintiff of Rs.1,67,219/- tou'ards actual repairs, supported by a series of bil1s (Ex. A-7 Lo Ex. A-221, as genuine and unrebutted. Waiting charges tor 37 days were also awarded at Rs.1,2O0/- per day, amounting to Rs 44,4OO/-, based on prevailing transportation rates. After deducting Rs 5,OO0/ - realized. from selling damaged parts, the trial Court held the 4 SKS,J I S.No.913 of 1999 ptaintiff cntitlcd to Rs.2,06,619/- as total dar.l r 1cs. Interest al l2o/o p.ar. from the date of the suit titl reali, r icn u'as also grantcd, <:onsidering the silencc of the defcndi ri and lailurc to challcnge the cl:rim. Aggricr.ed by the sai<l j rdgmcnt, the appellant /delcndant prelerrcd tlle prescnt app,_' I suit. 7 . Hc:, rd Sri P. Sri Harsha Reddv, lczL r .cl Sancling Counsel for Siltgarcni Collicries Co. Lld., app( i r nEI on be l-ralf ol tht: :rpltelllrnt as lvell zts Sri L. Ilarish, l( r ne(l coLrnsel appcarinll on l>chall ol tltc rcspondent.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant subr ri tr:d that the judgment iutd decrce passed by the trial Cou - s contrary to larv, b;rse J on .l \\.rong rezrding of thc evidencr:, r cl ignores [hc actual tel ms ol thc contract bctween the part..r s irnd that the contract docs not menticln payment of arny cr n pensalion or damages in czrse of an accident. 'lhe vehicl . irLvolved was insurcd, ,rnd the insurance company was not r ni <ie a parLy to tl're suit, rnaking the suit defective. The at. ilcnt u.as not intentionrrl or due to negligence but purely ,r.c:idental and beyond tlrc control of the appellant. He furthe - s rl)mitted Lhat accordingl to Clausc 14 of the agreement, the r,J p,3lli1n1 rs 661 qw" 5 SXS,J A.S.No.913 of 1999 liable for any loss or damage caused due to factors beyond its control.

9. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that both partie s had mutually agreed during a joint inspection to settle the matter by paying Rs.4O,OOO/-. Despite this, the trial Court au,arded a much higher amount, which goes against thc agrecment. There is no proper evidcnce to shou, that thc bunker rvas in bad condition or that the appellant u.as negligent. [n fact, the respondent did not check thc condition ol Lhe bunker before using it, which any responsible person should have done. Both parties believed the bunker was in working condition, so blaming the appellant alone is unjustified. He contended that the claim for waiting charges is baseless as thc contract does not providc for any such payment. The repair bills produced by the rcsponclent are inflated, not supported by proper evidcnce, and u,erc wrongly accepted b5. thc trial Court. The trial Court shilted [he burden of proof to the Appellant and assumed neglige nce without any solid prooi. The appellant had even offered to repair the vehicle out of goodwill, which was not an admission of fault or liabitity. The learned Judge misread the intenrion behind this 6 SKS,J P S No-913 of 1999 t -;i.::}::i oflcr and r,.,rongl1' concluclcd that the Appellant r: rl zr role in carrsing the itcciclcnt lO. Hc Frrther conte ndcd tl-rat thc trial Clt ' r' rt-'lied on unrelatcd j udgmcnts and misapplicd thc lau' unr : Ser:tion 73 of the Corrtract Act. The trail Cor:rt also wrongli t rr:luded thc appellant's ckrcuments and accepted exaggeratr d c:rr:dit bills from thc re sponclcnt n ithout proper verification I hc ai,T'ard of Rs.2,06,619/ u'tth intercst ttt llt'lt and costs i 'rot justifiecl in light o[ ,lrc contract tcnns, cspecialllt Clause :. 'ltrcrcforc, he pral,ed lhe Court to sct aside the judgmc I t .,1- thc trial Court bl,allorving this appeal suit.

11. On '.hc othcr hand, lcarned counsel for t r respondent submitted lhat the zrppcllant himself adrnitttr L tl-rart a joint inspection u as c:ondttcte cl :rnd that the resporl lr nt agrccd to acccpt Rs.4O,000/ tos,ards damages. Wherr t rorc was no negligenct: on the part of the appellant, ther', ,l'ou1d be no reason to oifer Rs.4O,00O/ as compensatiorl On the one hand, he aclmittcd his negligence by offering Rs . 0,0OO/-, and on the othcr hand, he claims that the negligett r lics rvith the respondent - He cannot t:rke such a contradict'. - sternd. With regard to nr:gligcnce, the trial Court elaborate l' liscussed the 1 SKS,J A.S.No.913 of I999 documents l-rled by the plaintiff and also examined the concerned witness, P.W.2 professional mechanic, who deposed about the damagc to the vehicle, the repairs carried out, and thc accident involving the said vehicle Based on the evidcnce and the documents filed by the respondcnt, the trial Court rightly delivered its judgment. There is no illegality in the judgment of the trial Court, and hence, the learned counsel prayed for dismissal ol the appeal suit' t2. The points that arisc for consideration in this appeal II Whether the respondent/ plaintiff is entitled to damages to thc tune oI Rs.2, 1 I ,619/ -? Whcther thc appellarrt is liable to pay thc said compensation? Whcthcr the judgment of the trial Court warrants any in terference? Point Nos.i and ii:

13. In light of the submissions made by both the lcarned counsel and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is the case of the plaintiff that he entered into a contract with the Defendant-Company for transportation of coal ln pursuance of thc said contract, the plaintiff depositcd an 8 SKS,J q S No.913 of 1999 amount of Rs.25,OO0/ with the Defendant-( ( mpany and commenccd Lraltsportation work_ On the alle11 r rlate of thc incident, rvhilc the plaintiff s tipper u,as sraticl, I uncler thc bunker at SRP-2 inclinc lor loading coal, .tht :c,al bunker suddenly <:ollapscd, carusing substantial darnag,_' r r r he tipper.

14. Ther.e is no dispute regarding the collaltsr rtf the coal bunker arrcl thc resullant dantage to thc plat.r iff's r,ehiclc. TI-re appcila n t/ de[endant has arlrnitted the saic rr r:ident. Thc primary contenlion rzrisecl by thr: appcllant is - u t. in vicu,of Clause 14 ol tht: agrccment, thc companl.is no iabkr for any compensation. A perusal of Clause 14 rer,, rls that the company ;hzrll not be liablc for <:ompensation ,.t lhe event of Iosses slrr-fcrcd bl tl-re contractor due to rc,].ir r)s such as strike, lo<'k-out, shortage of Iabour, fire, ltrcal.c rrr.n or road accidents, riots, rr,ar, insurrection, restrailt1,.. rrnposed by Governmr:ntal Acts or Legislation, or an)r othcr : rrses beyond the control of the compan-v.

15. Hou,ever, none of the contingencies : ,t rrnerated in Clause 14 are :rpplicerble to the present casc_ . ,[ t. collapse of the bunkt:r, which n as under the control of r I c. Appellant_ Company. canltot be said to be a circumstan.r ceyond the 9 SKS,J A.S.No.9 L3 of 1999 control of the company. Thus, the protection under Clause 14 does not extend to the facts of this case.

16. Furthermore, the appellant, in both the written statement and [he grounds of appeal, categorically admitted that he oflered to repair lhc vehicle and even proposed pa),ment of Rs.4O,O0O/ toq'ards damages aftcr receiving legal notice from the respondent/ plaintiff. This itself is an indication of implied admission of tregligence on part of the appe Ilant.

17. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent should have claimed compensation from the irrsurancc company is also wilhout merit. The learned counsel for thc respondcnl rightly pointed out that the incident did not consLrtute a road accident, and therefore, the insurance company \r'its not liablc to pay damages. When the negligence is attributable to the Company, the respondent is noL bound to procecd against the insurer. Thus, the appellant's contention on this aspect is liable to be rejected.

18. With regard to the quantum of damages awarded by the trial Court, the appellant contended that the amount is 10 SKS,J \. i.I\-o.913 of 1999 t-':ii*t...:,' exorbitant. Hou,evcr, the respondent/ plain t i produced documenl:,ry cvidence under trxhibits Al to ,1 2 /, including rcpair bills undcr Exhibits A7 to A22, : n olrnting to Rs.1,71,0OO/-. To substantiate the said bills, r'( rcspondent examined P.W.2, a prol'essional mechanic, u,hlorroborated the extent of damage and the repair r.l,ork urtdcr t r :tn. Nothing strbstantial rvas elicited during rl-re cross-cxami r ion of P.W.2 to discredit his tcslimonr'. Thercforc, the triar] tl;urt rightly concluded that the re sponde nt / plain tiff spcnt L r arrrount of Rs.1,67,2-;Ol- tonarcls repairs zrnd mechanic r:lr r qcs.

19. The lrial Court also trwarded u.aiting char i s:rt the rate ol Rs. 1,20O/ - pe r day, based on pre vailing ma.- . ( | rertcs, lor a lotal of 3i' days. The saicl claim is supported . tlrer evidence on record, and there appears to be no illegirli r, rn awarding such damages.

20. Horvt:ver, with respect to the interest au. r Jr:d, the trial Court grElnted interest (t1 l2ok per annum frr,r r the datc of filing of [he suit till the date of realizati()r] This needs modificatron in light of Scction 34 of thc ( ode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short'CPCJ, which reads : s lollou.s: 11 sKs,J A.S.No.9l3 of 1999 "section 34 CPC - Interest (l ) Where and in so far as a decree is for the paymcnt of mouey, thc Court maY, in the decree, order interest at such rate as tlle Court deems reasonable to be paid on thc principal sum adjudged, from thc datc ot the suit to the date of the decree. in addition to anv interest adJudged on such principal sum [or any pcriod prior to the institution of the suit, I [\uth further interesl at such rate not exceeding six pcr cent. per annum as the Court decrns reasonablc on such prrncipal surnl, from the date o[ the decrec to thc datc- o[ pa] Inent, or to such earlier date as the Court thinks fit : 2[Provicled that where the liabititv in relation to the sum so adjudged had ariscrl out o[ a commcrcial transaction, the rate of such further interest may exceed six per cent. per annum, but shall not exceed the contractual rate o[ interest or where there is no contractual rate, thc rate at \{'hich mone-\ s are lent or aclvanced b1' nationalised banks in rclation lo, ommerci.ll lransaclions Explanation L In this Sub section, "nationalised bank'means a correspotlditrg ncrv bank as deltned in the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 (5 of 1970). Explanation II. - For the purposcs of this section, a transaction is a commercial transaction, i[ it is connected with the industry, trade or business of the party incurring the liabilitv-l 12 SKS,J A S. No.913 of 1999 { (2) Where such a decree is silcnt with respcc ( llrc I)a}'ment of further interest 3[on such pr,,r, iPal s,uml from thc date of the docree to the lrl , (,f l)avlnent or other t:arlicr date', the Corlrt sl L tr. (ieerncd to havc refusecl such intcrcst. , n I a siepirrate suit therefore shall not Iie. (lorrcct the grammar and improve the scntcn . s ll<(' lhe judgmcnt of the Court and further insert s ..r trorr it4 r>f CPC in the judgment rvhcre it is releviL 1 an(l improve thc sentences with regard to sectlo . : I ol (lPCr. "

21. ln the prescnt casc, though the transzrr I )n is in the nature of a commercial arrangement, no con . ttuill ratc of interest hirs been established. Thcrefore, in tlr . al>scncc of a specific contractual stipulation or eviden(:( r1' ltrevailing lending rates from nationilliscd banks, the int ..r sr r.itte must be regulatecl u,ithin the permissible Iimits ol Sc,-rr rr :),.1 CpC.

22. Acc,trclingly, the interest awarded by th( rial Court is modificd to the following cxtent: tr) The responden t/ plaintiff shalt be r rirlocl ro interest at the ratc of l2oh per ar.t rt lrn lrom the date of suit till the date of lr crcc, adjudged by the trial Courr 13 SKS,J A.S.No.913 of 1999 b) However, irom the date of the decree till the date of realization, the interest shall be limited to 670 per anntlm, in consonance u'ith the mandate of Section 34 CPC. Point No.iii

23. In vieu, of the above discussion, the appcal suit is liable to be dismissed except to thc exLent of modificalion in the interest component. The judgment and decree of the trial Court are upheld, subject to thc variation in interest as indicated above.

24. In view thereof, this appeal suit is dismissed There shall be no order as to costs Miscellaneous applications, if any pcnding, shall stand closed I I To, //TRUE COPY// Sd/. N. SRIHARI PUTY REGISTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Senior Civil Judge at Asifabad. 2. One CC to Sri P Sri Harsha neOOv fSC for. . Ltd) Advocate [OpUC] 3. One CC to Sri L.Unnt'SH Advocate tOpUCl 4. Two CD Copies w NVts/PSL Singareni Collieries Co HIGH COURT DATED:1710412025 JUDGMENT+DECREE AS.No.913 of 1999 ':.- - ri ij[I 20ffi /a \ THIS APPEAL SUIT IS DISMISSED ( { A- 2,1 \-r,r