to 4, the complainant completed the job as per the work order and submitted the Bill for payment for the period till 31.05.2008 amounting to Rs.14,45,250/- out of which the accused persons paid only a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- leaving behind the balance sum of Rs.4,45,250/-. The accused persons and the other officers connected with the job done by the complainant company were highly satisfied and permitted the complainant company to continue with the job and directed the complainant company to submit his Bill accordingly. Initially, the complainant was not agreed to continue with the further job allotted by the accused company to the complainant since his balance due of Rs.4,45,250/- was not paid, but at the persistent request and representation made by accused nos. 2 and 3 that in future they will not make delay in making payment after submission of the bill by the complainant company and placing implicit reliance upon the version of the accused nos. 2 and 3, the complainant agreed to continue with the job offered by the accused company to the complainant. Accordingly, the complainant continued with the further job entrusted to him by the accused persons and the next bill for Rs.5,93,131/- till 18.07.2008 and bill of the TG Building amount to Rs.1,20,000/- was also submitted which was duly checked by the G.M. and other officials of the company. The complainant carried out the job of the accused company for the total amount of Rs.98,67,521/- till 12.08.2008 out of which the accused company paid a total sum of Rs.42,82,251/- as its bill transpires from the Ledger account of the complainant company maintained by the complainant in its regular course of business. In the above connection, the lawyer of the complainant company in his notice dated 21.10.2011 through inadvertence made demand of Rs.15,97,147/- from the accused company in place of
