THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT NO.1782 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: The defendants in O.S.No.25 of 1998 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur are the appellants herein. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs.2,58,154.75 ps. claiming as damages and also the costs of the work done by the plaintiff. The allegations in the plaint go to show that for construction of the ayacut across the Nakkaladoruvu vagu and excavation of supply channel to feed Dadineni tank of Chundi. The contract was given to the plaintiff for a total value of Rs.4,68,825/- and the plaintiff has completed the work but he was not paid the total amount and still he has to get a sum of Rs.1,84,000/-. While so, there was a cyclone from 18.10.1996 to 20.10.1996 and some of the constructions collapsed. The plaintiff also made a deposit of earnest money of Rs.9,500/- and Rs.21,500/- totalling Rs.31,000/-. The plaintiff is entitled for the return of the said amounts with interest at 12%. The defendant filed a written statement denying the allegations in the plaint and contending that the plaintiff has not completed the work totally and only 51% of work was done and the contract was cancelled because of default and there is no obligation to pay the interest at 12% and the amount claimed by the plaintiff is not correct and as per the measurements and as per the recorded work done by the plaintiff, the amounts were paid. There is no cause of action to file the suit. On the above pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages as prayed for? 2. To what relief? On behalf of the plaintiff, P.W.1 was examined and marked Exs.A- 1 to A-4 and on behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 was examined and marked Exs.B-1 to B-4. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kandukur passed the judgment and decree dated 06.08.1999 for Rs.10,014/- with interest @ 24% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of decree and at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. The points that arise for consideration are: 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the amount granted by the lower Court? 2. Whether the judgment and decree of the lower Court is valid and sustainable? POINTS: The lower Court has taken into consideration that the plaintiff has not completed the total work and the amounts were paid to him as recorded. But, however, the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff has to reconstruct the damaged portion due to cyclone is not tenable and, therefore, the amount of Rs.45,000/- cannot be deducted and he found that there was illegal deduction of Rs.5,903/- as scienerage charges and the Income Tax, which was deducted to a tune of Rs.4,111/- is payable and totally a sum of Rs.10,014/- is found payable by the defendant. In fact, the contention of the defendant was that due to cyclone, there was a damage and the plaintiff has to reconstruct the same. When the contract does not provide any such provision and when the consequential events are not in the hands of the plaintiff, the act of the defendant in deducting the amounts is not proper. Therefore, the decree of the lower Court in so far as it relates to the granting of payment of Rs.10,014/- cannot be interfered. But, however, the interest granted by the lower Court at 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of decree is not proper and the plaintiff is entitled to the interest only at 12% per annum as per Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1903 from the date of the suit till the date of decree and at 6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization. Therefore, the decree of the lower Court is modified. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is allowed in part. Each party to bear their own costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 03.08.2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO APPEAL SUIT NO.1782 OF 2001 Date: 03-08-2011 MR