Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Therefore, defendants contended that it was purely an act of negligence on the part of plaintiff and hence, he is responsible and liable to re-erect the collapsed tower at his own cost and risk as per the agreement.
Defendants specifically denied the fact that the tower was collapsed due to vis-major or by the act of God and that the contention of plaintiff that the collapse of tower was due to act of God was not accepted by defendants.
Therefore, defendants contended that plaintiff is not entitled to recover the suit claim as the collapse of tower was due to non-performance of his obligations / duties and responsibilities.

33. In furtherance to the communication, plaintiff complied with the re-construction work of the collapsed second tower at his own cost and raised the bill in a sum of Rs.81,705.48/- for repairing of the collapsed tower as per Ex.P6. Further, plaintiff also wrote a letter on 15.9.1998 and insisted defendant No.2 for the payment of the bill.

Defendant No.2 wrote a letter on 07.06.1999 (Ex.D.11) and directed the Assistant Executive Engineer to analyze the reasons for collapse of the tower. If it is found that the reason for the collapse of the second tower was wind and rain as alleged by plaintiff, the cost may be charged off to works and if it is found that it is due to the negligent act of plaintiff/contract agency, then the cost may be recovered from him.

34.The evidence of PW-1 discloses that as per the agreement Ex.P-1, plaintiff was entrusted with the work of construction of 8 towers. The collapsed tower was one among them.

The evidence further discloses that he has re- constructed the collapsed tower at his own cost. He has spent a sum of Rs.81,705.50/- and he did not send the bill. Further, in the cross-examination, plaintiff admits that the Assistant Executive Engineer wrote a letter to complete and thereafter, he has completed the work.

The evidence of DW-1 and DW-2 disclose that plaintiff was entrusted with the work of the erection of 8 towers and the collapsed second tower was one among them and that the second tower was collapsed on account of the negligent act of the contractor and the same was not due to vis-major or the act of God.

Further, the evidence of DW-2 also discloses that though the Executive Engineer had recommended and had sought approval for the payment with regard to the reconstruction of collapsed tower, but the higher authorities did not approve because the reason for the collapse of tower fact was a negligent act of the contractor.