Judgment :- 1. The appellant is the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money. The Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Limited, Udyogamandal, is the defendant. The plaintiff entered into a contract with the defendant for transport of goods country boats. The goods were transported. The plaintiff submitted his bills for the transport charges as per the contract, Four items of the claim were deducted by the defendant. The suit relates to only items 1, 3 and 4. In the course of the submissions shri. Unnithan, appearing for the appellant-plaintiff, fairly submitted that his client did not press claims 3 and 4 respectively relating to sums of Rs. 17,930/- representing the value of goods lost in transit owing to the boat capsizing and Rs. 2,575/-representing the value of goods short delivered at the place of destination, 2. The only claim which therefore survives for consideration in this appeal is as regards the sum of Rs. 11,498.84 deducted by the defendant allegedly in terms of Clause.17 of the tender notice No. SPUR/6/1972, which is identical to Clause.15 of the purchase order dated August 26,1972. This clause reads: "To meet the Contractor's responsibilities under the Workmen's Compensation Act as also the expenses if any incurred by FACT for medical expenses to the Contractor's workmen. a non¬refuudable deduction of 2 per cent will be realised from him either by way of adjustment in his bills or deductions from the security deposit. as FACT deems fit". (emphasis supplied) 3. The case of the defendant. as disclosed by the pleadings. is that the amount deducted at 2 per cent is non-refundable. as provided by the clause. whether or not there was. or there is a possibility of. a claim under the Workmen's Compensation Act (the "Act") and whether or not any medical expenses have been incurred by the defendant in respect of the workmen employed by the plaintiff in the discharge of his functions under the contract. Accepting this contention the court below dismissed the suit in regard to that claim as also in regard to the other two claims which are no longer pressed by the appellant. 4. Sri. Unnithan points out that the amount deducted as per Clause.15 of the purchase order is non-refundable only if the provisions of the Act are attracted by reason of injury or death occurring to a workman employed by the contractor in respect of the contract in question. 4. Sri. Unnithan points out that the amount deducted as per Clause.15 of the purchase order is non-refundable only if the provisions of the Act are attracted by reason of injury or death occurring to a workman employed by the contractor in respect of the contract in question. In such a case. counsel submits. the defendant would be entitled to make a deduction in the nature of a non-refundable sum. whether or not any claim has really been made by or on behalf of the workman. The rationale of this provision. counsel points out. is to safeguard or insure the defendant against the possibility of a claim being made against it. On the admitted facts of this case. counsel points out. no such possibility has arisen. for no workman met with any accident and no amount can therefore ever become payable under the Act in respect of the contract in question. Nor is there any evidence. counsel says. that medical expenses have been incurred by the defendant. In the circumstances. counsel contends. the court below went wrong in rejecting the plaintiff's claim. 5. Counsel for the respondent-defendant points out that in view of the non-applicability of the Limitation Act to a claim arising under the Act. and. in the absence of any provision under that Act providing for a period of limitation. there is always a possibility of a claim arising in the future. in respect of which. as provided under Clause.15, a provision has to be made to sufficiently insure or protect the defendant. furthermore. the defendant maintains a hospital to render medical aid to the workmen employed by its contractors and in respect of such expenses also a provision has to be made. It is to this end that Clause.15 provides for a non-refundable deduction. 6. There is substance in the contention of the defendant's counsel that. in the absence of any prescribed period of limitation. a claim can be made against the defendant at any time by or on behalf of a workman in respect of whom amounts became payable under the Act by reason of injury or death. But the facts must point to such a possibility before a deduction is made. Where injury or death has occurred attracting the provisions of the Act. the defendant. in terms of Clause.15 of the purchase order. But the facts must point to such a possibility before a deduction is made. Where injury or death has occurred attracting the provisions of the Act. the defendant. in terms of Clause.15 of the purchase order. would be fully justified in making a non-refundable deduction even in the absence of a claim against it. The reason is that such a claim has become a possibility. however remote it may be. The contract provides for a deduction in that event and the plaintiff cannot therefore legitimately demur. 7. However in the present case. the admitted facts rule out any such possibility. None was either killed or injured in the course of his employment in respect of the contract in question. To read Clause.15 in the manner suggested by the defendant would be totally unconscionable for it would not have been the intention of the parties to empower the defendant. a public sector undertaking. to enrich itself unjustly at the expense of the plaintiff even in a situation where there is not even the remotest possibility of a claim arising at any time in the future. Such construction would not have been in the minds of the parties to the contract. The clause must be understood to provide what reasonable men would provide for the eventuality in question. The intention of the parties was to enable the defendant to make a non-refundable deduction. wherever the possibility of a claim arose under the Act by reason of an event attracting the Act which occurred during the operation of the contract. In a case such as this where no such eventuality can ever arise on the admitted facts. Clause.15 is of no avail to the defendant to make a deduction under the Act. 8. Nor can the defendant make a deduction for medical expenses. for no such expenses are proved to have been incurred by it in respect of the men employed by the contractor during the period of the contract. There is no plea to that effect by the defendant. There is no averment in the written statement to show that any such expenses had been incurred by the defendant. No evidence has been adduced on the point by the defendant. There is no plea to that effect by the defendant. There is no averment in the written statement to show that any such expenses had been incurred by the defendant. No evidence has been adduced on the point by the defendant. This is a matter within the special knowledge of the defendant and the burden was on the defendant to show that medical expenses had been incurred in respect of the men employed by the contractor. In the absence of a specific plea or evidence on the point. we would assume that the defendant incurred no such medical expenses. Clause.15 therefore must be read so as to disallow the defendant to make a deduction for medical expenses where no such expenses have been established to have been incurred. 9. In the circumstances. we are of the view that the learned judge went wrong in disallowing the claim of Rs. 11.498.84 being the sum deducted by the defendant under Clause.15. Accordingly we set aside the finding of the court below as regards that claim. and pass a decree in favour of the appellant and against the defendant for Rs. 11.498.84 together with interest thereon at 6 per cent per annum from the date of suit and the proportionate costs incurred by the plaintiff in the court below as well as here. The appeal is allowed in the above terms.