Madras HC Rejects Contractor’s ₹1.68-Crore Sewage-Station Work Claim Without Supporting Records, Orders ₹9.69-Lakh Security Deposit Refund

The defendants issued letters of acceptance awarding the plaintiff contracts to operate and maintain sewage pumping stations under Packages 7 and 12, and received security deposits of Rs.3,67,400 and Rs.6,01,300 respectively.

The plaintiff alleged that he performed the work from March 2016 until the contracts were terminated in January 2017, and sued to recover the claimed contract payments with interest.

The defendants disputed that he had performed the work.

At trial, the plaintiff produced no bills, invoices, work records, or wage-payment records, and admitted that he had not raised invoices and lacked documents evidencing payments to workers.

He did not challenge the termination.

The judgment identified no statute or precedent as the basis of decision.

It applied the evidentiary principle that a plaintiff seeking payment for contractual work bears the burden of proving both actual performance and the amount due.

Letters of acceptance and receipt of security deposits establish the award of contracts, but do not, without supporting evidence, prove that the work was performed or establish the sums payable.

The Court also held that, in the circumstances of this case, security deposits received but not forfeited were to be refunded.

The letters of acceptance and undisputed security deposits established that the contracts had been awarded to the plaintiff.

But the defendants disputed performance and the claimed amounts, requiring the plaintiff to substantiate them.

His representations were assertions of his claim, not independent proof; he produced no work records, bills, invoices, attendance or wage records, and his cross-examination admissions further undermined proof of performance and quantum.

The Court therefore found that he had not discharged his burden and rejected both the principal claim and interest claim.

Because termination had not been challenged, the Court did not examine its validity.

It dismissed the suit without costs.

Separately, as the defendants had received but not forfeited the security deposits, the Court directed them to refund Rs.3,67,400 and Rs.6,01,300 within three months of receiving a copy of the judgment, without interest.