Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(65) The learned Advocate for the plaintiff referred to the rules laid down in the leading case Hadley v. Baxendale, (1854) 9 Ex. 341. Sec 73 of the Indian Contract Act has been enacted to affirm the said rules and one had to follow its provisions strictly in preference to later. English decisions. The learned Advocate for the plaintiff relied on the illustration (n) to S. 73 of the Contract Act which has adopted the rule o English Law that the law does not regard collateral or consequential damage arising from delay in payment of money. It is this principle which was applied in Rangaswamy v. Venkatarama, AIR 1915 Mad 942 where the defendant had undertaken to collect some moneys due to the plaintiff and out of such collections to pay the debt due by the plaintiff the third person, who however, because of the defendant's default, recovered it with costs form the plaintiff. In an action by the plaintiff to recover from the defendant the amount of the debt and the cost he had to pay to his creditor, it was held that the amount of costs recovered against him was a consequential damage for which the law does not award compensation under S. 73 of the Indian Contract Act. But that rule, however, does not apply where there is a special contract which controls the relations and, for breach of which, damages may be awarded for consequential losses. Thus in Rolin v. Steward (1854) 139 ER 245 it was held that substantial dishonouring cheques of customer, there being sufficient assets in the hands of the banker a the time to meet them. In the present case the first defendant Bank had agreed to give overdraft on the securities of movables and immovables of the plaintiff. In Wilson v. United Counties Bank Ltd., 1920 AC 102 relied on by both the parties, an action was brought upon an agreement which the defendant Bank had made with the plaintiff to look after his business during his absence. It was held that the defendant Bank by its negligence in the discharge of its duties under the agreement caused the bankruptcy of the customer and was liable in damages. At page 132 of the decision it is pointed out that said case differed from the case of a banker who, having adequate funds in his hands to pay his customer's cheques, dishonours it as in the latter case the banker does not contract to take any steps to maintain his customer's credit or reputation but only to honour the customer's credit funds available for the purpose. But it is pointed out in the decision that he refusal to honour the customer's cheques while such funds are so available, is in itself injurious to the customer's credit, if he be a trader as to entitle him-though no special damage be alleged or proved-not merely to recover nominal charges, but to recover in the shape of damages temperate and reasonable compensation for the injury thus done to this credit.