Short Note : The defendant No.1 executed a contract requiring him to serve the plaintiff for five years after the training and defendant No.2 stood surety for him. According to the case of the plaintiff, it was agreed that the defendants would compensate the plaintiff for all expenses incurred by the Company in training the defendant No.1. By the same agreement, the assessment by the plaintiff-company as to the amount spent on training was final and binding on the defendant. The defendant No.1 was taken in regular employment after the training period was over on 20-3-1962. However, on 1-8-1962, he went on leave and thereafter he resigned from the services under his letter, Ex.P-5 dated 25-9-1962. The defendant No. 1 not having served the plaintiff for a period of five years as agreed, is sued for the amounts spent on his training. The defendant No.2 is made liable as a surety. 2. The lower Court came to the conclusion that the amount claimed was by way of compensation which the defendants were bound to pay, they having committed breach of the terms of the agreement. The first appellate Court came to the same conclusion. The damages were not by way of penalty so as to attract section 74 of the Contract Act. Held : The question is whether by such services rendered for six months, the damages were mitigated. The case, however, has not been examined from this aspect by the lower Court nor was it pleaded in that manner nor any evidence was led on the mitigation of damages. Unless it was properly pleaded, it would not be possible to hazard any estimate as to the mitigation of damages claimed by virtue of having served the company for a portion of the covenanted period. I would, therefore, reject this part of the argument. 3. It is established that the appellant took training from 20-2-1961 to 19-3-1962. He was being paid Rs. 275 as stipend. Of course, the main idea was that he should take training but it cannot be gainsaid that he had also rendered some services during this period for which the company would be required to pay. Though there is no basis to assess the value of the work done by the appellant, but taking the lowest value of the services rendered by him, I think Rs. Though there is no basis to assess the value of the work done by the appellant, but taking the lowest value of the services rendered by him, I think Rs. 100 per month could be considered a conservative estimate of the value of the services rendered by the appellant for which he could be given benefit. I would, therefore, allow Rs. 1,300 to be deducted for this reason from the amount of compensation to be received by the company. With this deduction from the decretal amount decreed by the Court below, I would dismiss the appeal. Appeal partly allowed.