JUDGMENT : The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Second Class, Shivpuri claiming Rs. 1425 as damages and interest amounting to Rs. 242 thereon for breach of a contract by the defendants for the sale of 100 Pallas of Mung at the rate of Rs. 37/6 per Palla, The plaintiffs case was that on 4th November 1948 the defendants contracted with him to sell and deliver 100 Pallas of Mung at the rate of Rs. 37/6 per Palla and to deliver the Mung between 30th January 1949 to 13th February 1949 and took from him Rs. 100 as earnest money; and that the defendant failed to deliver any Mung to the plaintiff on or before 13th February 1949. The defendants plea was one of general denial. They admitted having received a deposit of Rs. 100 but pleaded that the said deposit was taken because the plaintiff wished to purchase Mung but that no contract for the sale of Mung was concluded because there was no agreement between the parties with regard to the price of Mung. The trial Judge held that the plaintiff had failed to prove the contract alleged by him and that the contract was also not enforceable for the reason that it was not concluded and recorded according to the mandatory provisions of Qawaid Mandi Committees of the former Gwalior State. He accordingly dismissed the plaintiffs suit without expressing any opinion on the quantum of damages. In first appeal the decision of the trial Court was upheld by the Civil Judge, First Class, Shivpuri. The plaintiff has now filed this second appeal. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have formed the opinion that the plaintiffs claim for damages to the extent of Rs. 1425 must be decreed. The plaintiff sought to prove the fact that the defendants entered into a contract with him for the sale of 100 Pallas of Mung at the rate of Rs. 37/8 per Palla by his own evidence and that of his witness Amritmal and by a receipt Ex. P.1 evidencing the payment of Rs. 100 as an earnest money to the defendants in respect of the contract. The plaintiff Vishwanath deposed that on 4th November 1948 a contract between him and the defendants was concluded about the sale of 100 Pallas of Mung at the rate of Rs. P.1 evidencing the payment of Rs. 100 as an earnest money to the defendants in respect of the contract. The plaintiff Vishwanath deposed that on 4th November 1948 a contract between him and the defendants was concluded about the sale of 100 Pallas of Mung at the rate of Rs. 37/8 per Palla, that the contract was entered through a Dalai Amritlal, that the Mung was to be delivered on any day between 30th January 1949 and 13th February 1949 and that the defendants Munim Gajadhar gave him a receipt of the payment of Rs. 100 as earnest money in respect of the contract. The receipt Ex. P.1 expressly mentioned that Rs. 100 were paid by the plaintiff as earnest money in respect of a contract for the sale of 100 Pallas of Mung to the plaintiff by the defendants at the rate of Rs. 37/6 per Palla. The plaintiffs statement is corroborated by Amritlal Dalai through whom the contract was entered. The effect of this evidence of the plaintiff is in no way destroyed by the evidence produced by the defendants. On the other hand it receives support from the testimony of the defendants witness Gajadhar and the pleadings of the defendants. The defendants admitted the receipt of Rs. 100 as deposit but said that there was no completed contract as there was no agreement between the parties as to the price of the Mung which was to be sold. The untenability of the defendants plea becomes obvious when it is remembered that the normal course of business is to pay the earnest money when the contract is concluded. A deposit or an earnest money is not paid at the stage of the commencement of the negotiations. The admission of the defendants that they received an earnest money of Rs. 100 is in itself evidence of the fact that there was concluded contract between them and the plaintiff. The evidence of the defendants witness Gajadhar is that there were negotiations between the parties for the sale of 100 Pallas of Mung at the rate of Rs. 37/6 per Palla and Rs. 100 were obtained from the plaintiff and a receipt was given by him, but that Ex. P.1 was not that receipt and that it did not bear his signature. The witness suggested that the contract was subsequently cancelled. The statement of the witness that Rs. 37/6 per Palla and Rs. 100 were obtained from the plaintiff and a receipt was given by him, but that Ex. P.1 was not that receipt and that it did not bear his signature. The witness suggested that the contract was subsequently cancelled. The statement of the witness that Rs. 100 were paid by the plaintiff as earnest money is, as I have said above, in itself sufficient to show that the negotiations resulted in a completed contract. Gajadhar no doubt said that the receipt produced by the plaintiff was not the receipt given by him. But he could not say in what respect the receipt, which he said was actually given to the plaintiff differed from that produced by the plaintiff. The denial of his signature on the receipt Ex. P. 1 has, therefore, no value in the face of the plaintiffs statement that it was signed by the witness himself in his presence. The suggestion made by Gajadhar that the contract was subsequently cancelled is in variance with the defendants pleadings. It is not the case of the defendants that the contract was concluded but that, thereafter it was cancelled. The defendants plea was that in fact there was no completed contract as the parties did not agree as to price of Mung. In my opinion from the above evidence led by the parties and the defendants written statement, the conclusion is inescapable that there was a concluded contract between the parties about the sale of Mung according to which 100 Pallas of Mung were to be sold and delivered to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 37/6 per Palla on or before 13-2-1949. 3. The lower courts have not given any consideration to the above evidence on record. They only took into account the evidence which the plaintiff produced to show that the contract was in fact noted in records of the Mandi Committee. The courts below rejected that evidence on the ground that it was secondary and further held that it did not establish the fact of any contract having been concluded and noted in accordance with the provisions of the Qawayad Mandi Committee. The trial Judge and the appellate Judge both took the view that the Qawayad Mandi Committee being a special law, it could not be overridden by general law and that the provisions therein were mandatory and not discretionary. The trial Judge and the appellate Judge both took the view that the Qawayad Mandi Committee being a special law, it could not be overridden by general law and that the provisions therein were mandatory and not discretionary. I am unable to agree with this view. There is nothing in the Qawayad Mandi Committee to indicate that a contract which has not been concluded or recorded according to those provisions, is unenforceable or that no damages can be claimed in respect of its breach. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents was unable to refer me to any such provision in the Qawayad Mandi Committee. If a contract has been noted by the Mandi Committee, the parties can easily prove the contract and its terms by producing the record of the Mandi Committee. But if it has not been noted, that cannot preclude the parties from proving the contract by other evidence. 4. If then, as I think, there was a concluded contract between the parties for the sale of 100 Pallas of Mung at the rate of Rs. 37-6-0 per palla and the defendants failed to sell and deliver the Mung to the plaintiff on or before 13th February 1949, the question arises as to what is the amount of damages that the plaintiff can get for the breach of the contract. The plaintiff averred but on 13th February 1949 the market price of Mung was Rs. 50-10-0 per palla. The plaintiff Vishwanath said in his evidence that on this date the rate was Rs. 50-12-0 per palla. Nathuram, a clerk of the Mandi Committee while giving evidence on behalf of the plaintiff said that on 10-2-1949 the rate was Rs. 50 per palla and that on 19th February 1949 the rate was Rs. 53-2-0 per palla. This evidence as to the prevailing rate of Mung on 13th February 1949 has not been rebutted by the defendants. There does not, therefore, appear to me any reason for rejecting the plaintiffs claim in the plaint for damages on the basis that market price on 13th February 1949 was Rs. 50-10-0 per palla. The measure of damages will clearly be the difference between the market price on 13th February 1949 and the contract price. There does not, therefore, appear to me any reason for rejecting the plaintiffs claim in the plaint for damages on the basis that market price on 13th February 1949 was Rs. 50-10-0 per palla. The measure of damages will clearly be the difference between the market price on 13th February 1949 and the contract price. The plaintiff has no doubt not led any evidence to show that when the defendants did not deliver the Mung to him he had to purchase Mung from somewhere else at a price exceeding the contract price. But as has been held by the Privy Council in Erroll Mackay v. Kameshwar Singh, AIR 1932 PC 196 (A) and by the Madras High Court in Ismail Sait and Sons. v. Wilson and Co., ILR 41 Mad 709 : (AIR 1919 Mad 1053) (B), it is not necessary for the plaintiff to prove that he purchased Mung from other sources at a price exceeding the contract price and sustained a loss. According to these decisions the fact that the buyer sustained no actual loss from the sellers failure to deliver the goods is no ground for awarding nominal damages to the buyer. The buyer is entitled, as indicated by illustration (a) to S. 73, Contract Act to receive from the seller by way of compensation the sum by which the contract price falls short of the price for which the buyer might have obtained goods of like quality at the time when they ought to have been delivered. The plaintiff-appellant is thus entitled to get damages at the rate of Rs. 13-4-0 per palla for the failure of the defendants to deliver to him 100 pallas of Mung on the due date, the total amount of these damages comes to Rs. 1,325. The appellant is clearly entitled to get this amount as well as Rs. 100 being the amount of earnest money paid by him to the defendants. 5. The appellant made a claim for interest as damages on the amount of Rs. 1,325. This must be rejected, as he cannot clearly get damages on damages. 6. The result is that the decisions of the Courts below are set aside and the plaintiffs claim to the extent of Rs. 1,425 against the defendants is decreed with costs in all the Courts.