Dismissed

The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., v. T.Subrahmanyeshwar Rao

Telangana HC17 Apr 2025AS/913/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A coal transport contractor sued a mining company after its coal bunker collapsed on his tipper during loading. The trial court awarded repair costs, waiting charges and interest at 12%. The High Court held the bunker collapse was not beyond the company's control, so Clause 14 exemption did not apply, upheld the damages but reduced post-decree interest to 6% under Section 34 CPC, and dismissed the

What did the court decide?

Damages of Rs.2,06,619/- upheld; interest modified to 12% per annum from suit to decree and 6% per annum from decree to realization; no order as to costs.

The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

[³³⁸⁵ ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

¶3

THURSDAY, THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE K. SUJANA

¶6

FIRST APPEAL NO: 913 OF 1999

¶7

Appeal under section 96 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree Dated 0711211998 made in O.S.No.13 of 1992 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge at Asifabad.

¶8

Between:

¶9

The Singareri Col eries Co. Ltd.,, through its General Manage(Projects) Sreeramput(Projects) Area R/o Srirampur Colony Mancherial Mandal

¶10

AND

¶11

.AppellanUDefendent

¶12

T.Subrahmanyeshwar Rao, S/o. Nancheraiah Transport Contractor R/o.Mancherial Mancherial Mandal

¶13

...RespondenUPlaintiff

¶14

l.A. NO: 1 OF 1999(CMP. NO: 7802 0F 1999)

¶15

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased To stay the operation of the decree and judgment dt.711211998 in OS No. 1 3/92 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge, Asifabad.

¶16

l.A. NO: 2 OF'1999(CMP . NO: 12396 OF 1999

¶17

Between:

¶18

T. Subrahmanyeshwar Rao, S/o.Nancheraiah aged 35 years, Occ:Transport Contractor R/o.Mancherial Mancherial Mandal, Adilabad District

¶19

...Petitioner/Respondent

¶20

AND

¶21

The Singareni Collieries Co ltd, through its General Manage(projects) Sreeramput(Projects) Area R/o.Srirampur Colony Mancherial Mandal'

¶22

...AppellanUDefendant

¶23

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the cir )r mstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Cour nay be pleased to vacate the interim stay granted in CMP No.7B02l99 in AS Nc^r) 3/99 dt B/4/1999.

¶24

Counsel for the Appellant: SRI P SRI HARSHA REDOY (SC [:)R SINGARENI coLLIERtES CO LTD)

¶25

Counsel for the Respondents: L HARISH

¶26

The Court made the following: JUDGMENT

¶27

./,

¶28

THE HONOURABLE^{SMT. JUSTICE K' SUJANA}

¶29

APPEAL^{SUIT No.913of 1999}

¶30

JUDGMENT:

¶31

Challenging^{Lhe order datedO7 12'199a passed} tn O.S.No.13^{of 1992by the learned Senior Civil Judge' Asifabad'} llle presen[^{appealsuit is filcd}

¶32

The brief^{factsof the casc aret hat the plaintiff is a coal} transport^{contractor [or the defclldelnt companyundera} contract^{from July 199 1 to July 1993He owns a tipper} vehicle bearing^{No'AEK-2298'"vhichwas damaged on} November^lg l20,^{lgg | , u'hena coal bunker unexpectedly fell} on it u,hile^{sl'ationedunderthc bunkcr for coal loading The} plaintiff reported^{the incidcnt to the deferldant'and both} parties assessed^{the damagesThe plaintifi claimsthat the} defendantneitherrepairedthevehiclenorcompensatedhim for waiting^{chargcs, r,'hich caused a daily loss of Rs 1 '500/ -} from November^{19, 1991, until repairs were completedon} December²⁷ ,^{lggl 'Thc plaintiffspentRs' | '67 '219 I -on} repairs^{and sustained additional losses due to waitingcharges} of Rs.55,5OO^{for 37 days Hc sold damaged parts as scrap for}

¶33

¶34

¶35

sKs,J / .S.No.9I 3 of 1999

¶36

¶37

Rs.5,0OO and is now claiming a total amount r:l F s 2,17 ,7 19 I from the rkrfendant.

¶38

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.

¶39

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.

¶40

¶41

sKs,J A.S.No.913 of 1999

¶42

¶43

After examining the^{evidence,the trial Court, uideorder} daLed. 07.72.1998,^{partly allowed the suit hotding that the} damage caused to the^{plaintitfs vehicle was adirect} consequence of the^{defendant company'snegligencein} maintaining the bunker^{on its premises.Relyingon 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 contractualobligations lt u'as} obser-ved that the delendant^{did not fail to respondto multiple} notices sent by^{the plaintiff, nor did it protestthe quotations} issued for repairs.^{The oral offer to get the vehicle repaired or} pay Rs.40,O0O/-^{wasunsubstantiatedbyn'ritten} communication and^{was therefore considered insufficiet-rtto} refute the^{plaintiffls claim.}

¶44

Further, the trial Court^{acceptedthe claim ofthe} plaintiff of Rs.1,67,219/-^{tou'ardsactual 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/-, basedon} prevailing transportation rates.^{After deducting Rs 5,OO0/-} realized. from selling^{damaged parts, the trial Court held the}

¶45

¶46

SKS,J I S.No.913 of 1999

¶47

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.

¶48

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.

¶49

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

¶50

¶51

SXS,J A.S.No.913 of 1999

¶52

qw"

¶53

liable for any loss or damage caused due to factors beyond its control.

¶54

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

¶55

t -;i.::}::i

¶56

¶57

SKS,J P S No-913 of 1999

¶58

oflcr and r,.,rongl1' concluclcd^{that the Appellantr: rl zr role in} carrsing the itcciclcnt

¶59

lO. Hc Frrther conte ndcd tl-rat thc^trialClt '^{r'rt-'lied on} unrelatcd^j udgmcnts and misapplicd^{thc lau' unr :Ser:tion 73} of the Corrtract Act. The trail Cor:rt^{also wronglit rr:luded thc} appellant's ckrcuments and^{accepted exaggeratr d c:rr:ditbills} from thc re sponclcntⁿ ithout^{proper verificationI hc ai,T'ardof} 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.

¶60

On '.hc othcr hand, lcarned^counselfort 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

¶61

¶62

SKS,J A.S.No.913 of I999

¶63

documents l-rled by^{the plaintiff and also examinedthe} concerned witness, P.W.2^{professional mechanic,who} deposed about the^{damagcto the vehicle, the repairs carried} out, and thc accident^{involving the said vehicle Basedon the} evidcnce and the^{documents filed by the respondcnt,the trial} Court rightly delivered^{its judgment. There is no illegalityin} the^judgment of the^{trial Court, and hence, the learned} counsel prayed for^{dismissal ol the appeal suit'}

¶64

t2. The points that^{arisc for consideration inthis appeal}

¶65

are

¶66

Whether the respondent/^{plaintiff is entitled to damages} to thc tune oI Rs.2,^{1 I} ,619/^-? II Whcther thc appellarrt^{is liable to pay thcsaid} compensation? Whcthcr the^{judgmentof the trial Court warrantsany} in terference?

¶67

Point Nos.i and ii:

¶68

In light of the submissions^{made by both the lcarned} counsel and upon^{perusal of the material availableon record,} it is the case of the^{plaintiff thathe enteredinto a contract} with the Defendant-Company^{for transportation of coal ln} pursuance of thc said^{contract,the plaintiff depositcdan}

¶69

¶70

SKS,J q S No.913 of 1999

¶71

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.

¶72

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.

¶73

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

¶74

¶75

SKS,J A.S.No.9 L3 of 1999

¶76

control of the company. Thus, the protection under Clause 14 does not extend to the facts of this case.

¶77

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.

¶78

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.

¶79

With regard to the quantum of damages awarded by the trial Court, the appellant contended that the amount is

¶80

¶81

t-':ii*t...:,'

¶82

SKS,J . i.I-o.913 of 1999

¶83

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.

¶84

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.

¶85

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:

¶86

¶87

sKs,J A.S.No.9l3 of 1999

¶88

"section 34^CPC -^Interest

¶89

(l ) Where and in so far as a^{decreeis forthe} paymcnt of mouey, thc Court^{maY, inthe decree,} order interest at such^{rate as tlle Courtdeems} reasonable to be^{paid on thcprincipal sum} adjudged, from thc^{datc ot the suitto the dateof the} decree. in addition to^{anv interestadJudged on such} principal sum [or any pcriod^{prior to the institution} of the suit, I [\uth further^{intereslat such rate not} exceeding six^pcr cent.^{per annumas the Court} decrns reasonablc on such^{prrncipal surnl, fromthe} date o[ the decrec to^{thc datc- o[ pa] Inent, or to such} earlier date as the^{Court thinks fit:}

¶90

2[Provicled that^{where the liabititvin relationto the} sum so adjudged had^{ariscrl out o[ a commcrcial} transaction, the rate^{of such further interestmay} exceed six^per cent.^{per annum,butshall not} exceed the contractual^{rate o[ interest or where} there is no contractual^{rate,thc rate at{'hich} mone-\ s are lent or^{aclvancedb1' nationalised banks} in rclation lo,^{ommerci.lllransaclions}

¶91

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).}

¶92

Explanation II.^- For the^{purposcsof this section,a} transaction is a commercial^{transaction,i[ itis} connected with^{the industry, tradeor businessof} the party incurring^{the liabilitv-l}

¶93

{

¶94

¶95

SKS,J A S. No.913 of 1999

¶96

(2) Where such a decree is silcnt with respcc ( llrc I)a}'ment^offurther 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.

¶97

(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. "

¶98

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.

¶99

Acc,trclingly, the interest awarded by th( rial Court is modificd to the following cxtent:

¶100

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

¶101

¶102

SKS,J A.S.No.913 of 1999

¶103

I I

¶104

b) However,^{irom the date of the decree till the} date of realization, the interest^shallbe limited to 670 per anntlm, in^{consonanceu'ith}

¶105

the mandate of Section 34 CPC.

¶106

Point No.iii

¶107

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

¶108

In view thereof,^{this appeal suit is dismissed There} shall be no order as^{to costs}

¶109

Miscellaneous applications, if^{any pcnding, shall stand}

¶110

closed

¶111

Sd/. N. SRIHARI PUTY REGISTRAR

//TRUE COPY//

To,

SECTION OFFICER

The Senior Civil Judge at Asifabad.

¶116

One CC to Sri P Sri Harsha neOOv fSC for. Singareni Collieries Co .^{Ltd) Advocate} [OpUC]

¶117

One CC to Sri L.Unnt'SH Advocate tOpUCl

¶118

Two CD Copies

NVts/PSL

HIGH COURT

DATED:1710412025

':.- -
/a
ri ij[I 20ffi
<br>

¶124

JUDGMENT+DECREE

¶125

AS.No.913 of 1999

¶126

THIS APPEAL SUIT IS DISMISSED

¶127

{ A-
( -r,r
2,1

The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., v. T.Subrahmanyeshwar Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., v. T.Subrahmanyeshwar Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kakunoori Srikanth Vs Sri Shiva Kumar Goud

Mehabbob Pasha Vs Mahamooda Begum

Radhe Shyam Mishra Vs Mukund Das

Mohd Altamash Ayaaz Vs The State of Telangana

Munshad Baig Vs The State of Telangana

Mr. L.Yadagiri Raju Vs Mr. Ranukunta Raghuramulu (Died)