Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. After about a month, the plaintiffs raised a grievance that some persons were unlawfully removing the fish waste from the precincts of Sassoon Dock. The said stand of the plaintiffs was contrary to the scope of work under the contract awarded to the plaintiffs which was restricted to removal of the fish waste etc. dumped in and around the dustbins at Sassoon Dock. In order to resolve the issue, meetings were held with the members of Seafood Peelers Shade Owners' Association, defendant No.19. It transpired that the fish waste was then being used for manufacture of poultry feed and thus fetched good value in the market. The defendant No.19 thus took a stand that the waste material generated out of the peeling of fish belonged to them and they were entitled to dispose of the fish waste on their own outside the Sassoon Dock. Resultantly, the accumulation of fish waste, in the dustbins, 12 OS-S-2512-2007-J 12-6-20.doc decreased. The plaintiffs, on the other hand, claimed that they had the authority to remove the fish waste from the precincts of Sassoon Dock beyond the fish waste dumped in and around the dustbins.

11. The defendant Nos.2 to 11 have categorically asserted that under the terms of the contract, the plaintiff No.1 was to remove and transport fish waste from the dustbins and its surroundings. The defendant Nos. 2 to 11 never restrained the plaintiffs from removal of the fish waste in terms of the contract, as alleged by the plaintiffs. Nor the defendants permitted the members of the defendant No.19 to remove fish waste. It was denied that the officers/officials of the defendant No.2 were hand in glove with defendant No.19 and thereby caused loss to the plaintiff as alleged. The defendant Nos. 2 to 11 have contended that under the terms of the contract, the plaintiffs were entitled to remove the fish waste dumped in and around the dustbins only. The possible waste which could have been dumped in the dustbins during the contract period was a matter of business judgment. The plaintiffs had made certain incorrect assumptions about the quantity of the waste. During the 13 OS-S-2512-2007-J 12-6-20.doc actual execution of the contract, the plaintiffs realized that there was less accumulation of the fish waste, in the dustbins, than anticipated. The defendant Nos. 2 to 11 cannot, therefore, be held liable for the alleged loss of profits, which were miscalculated by the plaintiffs on a much higher side. The claim for damages to the tune of Rs.45,67,50,000/- is thus stated to be unjustifiable, unreasonable and imaginary. On these, amongst other grounds, the defendant Nos. 2 to 11 prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

56. The controversy as regards the place/area from where the plaintiffs were to collect the fish waste has its genesis in the purpose to which the fish waste could be put to. This aspect has to be considered through the prism of the abysmally low bid submitted by the plaintiffs. As indicated above, the estimated cost of the work was approximately Rs.33,48,000/-. This amount was estimated to be paid by the defendant No.2 to the contractor for removal of the fish waste from the dustbins in the Sassoon Dock. The plaintiffs submitted a bid of Rs.1,17,855/-. The bid worked out to 96.47% below the tender price. On being called upon to offer justification, the plaintiffs vide letter dated 18 th July 2001 (Exh.'C') 50 OS-S-2512-2007-J 12-6-20.doc claimed that it was possible to generate profit, despite such lowest quote, as the fish waste was used for manufacturing poultry feed. It thus becomes evident that the primary consideration for the plaintiffs for executing the said contact was not the remuneration to be paid by the defendant No.2 but the profit which the plaintiffs would generate by disposing of the fish waste in the market.

60. The manner in which Mr. Devendra Atmaram Naik 52 OS-S-2512-2007-J 12-6-20.doc (P.W.No.1) fared in the cross examination provides legitimate answers to many a questions which bear upon the aforesaid controversy. Mr.Devendra Atmaram Naik (P.W.No.1) was candid enough to concede, in the cross examination, that the contract was to remove and transport fish waste from dustbins and its surroundings. Mr.Devendra Atmaram Naik (P.W.No.1) endeavoured to extricate from the consequence of the aforesaid answer by asserting that the contract was to take 2 to 5 trucks of fish waste, in off-season, and 4 to 7 trucks of waste, in peak season. To a pointed question, as to whether the plaintiffs were to collect fish waste, offals etc. from the dustbins and the area surrounding the dustbins or from anywhere else, Mr. Devendra Naik (P.W.No.1) replied that the waste was to be collected from the dustbins and its surrounding area only. He went on to add that they were to fill 7 lorries per day. However, Mr.Devendra Atmaram Naik (P.W.No.1) went on to admit in no uncertain terms that the plaintiffs were only entitled to remove fish waste which was actually deposited in the dustbins and its surrounding. It was further elicited in the cross examination of Mr.Naik (P.W.No.1) that fish waste was also segregated in the godowns of the suppliers and those suppliers were not bound to put such fish waste and seafood waste into the 53 OS-S-2512-2007-J 12-6-20.doc dustbins and its surroundings, at Sassoon Dock.