JUDGMENT : VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO, J. 1. The unsuccessful plaintiff in the suit filed the present appeal against the judgment and decree dated 26-02-1999 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Kovvur, West Godavari District, in O.S. No. 72 of 1989. The suit is filed for recovery of an amount of Rs.94,392-46 ps. with future interest from the defendants/The Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) and for costs of the suit. 2. The case of the plaintiff as narrated in the plaint, in brief, is as follows: (a) It is pleaded that the plaintiff is the owner of bus bearing Registration No. TNG-1299. The plaintiff entered into an agreement on 29-01-1986 with the APSRTC giving her bus on hire for plying on the route specified by the defendants. The vehicle of the plaintiff operated from Jangareddigudem bus depot to Buttaigudem from 04-02-1986 to 31-12-1986. The plaintiff was told that the distance between two points is 10 kilometers and the defendants accordingly paid hire charges at Rs.2-40 ps. per km., for the said period. The plaintiff obtained actual measurement of the distance between two points and it is 11.3 kms. The vehicle of the plaintiff cover the distance of 270.8 kms. on each day. On the other hand, the defendants paid hire charges for 250 kms. per day only. The plaintiff is entitled for differential amount shown in plaint A schedule with interest. (b) It is further pleaded that the defendants illegally levied fines and penalties. No opportunity was given to the plaintiff while imposing fines and penalties. The defendants have given a guarantee to the plaintiff at 6,000 kms. in a month. The vehicle of the plaintiff cover a distance of 4,560 kms. only in the month of September, 1986. The defendants are liable to pay at Rs.2-40 ps per km., for the balance of guaranteed kms. shown in plaint D schedule with interest. The defendants made late payments to the plaintiff and that the defendants are liable to pay interest on the delayed payments shown in plaint B schedule. The plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.94,392- 46 ps. Hence, the suit. 3. shown in plaint D schedule with interest. The defendants made late payments to the plaintiff and that the defendants are liable to pay interest on the delayed payments shown in plaint B schedule. The plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.94,392- 46 ps. Hence, the suit. 3. Brief averments in the written statement filed by the 1st defendant/APSRTC, which is adopted by the defendants 2 to 4, are as follows: (a) It is admitted that the vehicle of the plaintiff bearing registration No. TNG-1299 on hire and that an agreement was entered into on 29-01-1986. The plaintiff was explained the reasons for imposing fines and penalties on each occasion. The plaintiff simply noted and did not raise any objection. She received the payment without raising an objection. At no point of time, the plaintiff raised objection. The plaintiff failed to supply the vehicle to the defendants. Hence, the defendants are not liable to pay tax for the days for which the plaintiff did not supply the vehicle. As per terms of agreement, the defendants are entitled to deduct tax for non-supply of the vehicle. The defendants are authorized under the provisions of the agreement to deduct tax for those days for which the vehicle did not supply. (b) It is further contended that due to stoppage of the vehicle and due to strike by the employees, there was shortage in operating the guaranteed kms. Due to checking and cross-checking of the bills, there may be some delays and it is not intentional. The plaintiff is, therefore, not entitled for interest on delayed payments. So also, the claim of the plaintiff for withholding the amount under fines and penalties from January, 1987 to December, 1988 is untenable. The plaintiff did not raise any protest and accepted the payment during the said period. (c) It is further contended that the vehicle was sent to Eluru for inspection. The plaintiff did not put up any claim with the defendants for plying the vehicle from Kovvur to Eluru for inspection. The plaintiff is, therefore, not entitled to any amount under the said head. (d) It is further contended that the plaintiff is also not entitled for damages on the ground that the vehicle plied with overload. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. The plaintiff is, therefore, not entitled to any amount under the said head. (d) It is further contended that the plaintiff is also not entitled for damages on the ground that the vehicle plied with overload. Hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 4. Based upon the pleadings of both the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the suit for unascertained amount is maintainable and enforceable against the defendants? (2) What were the true terms of the agreement dated 29-01-1986 and who committed the breach of the said terms? (3) Whether the several claims and interest thereon made by the plaintiff are true and valid, if so, whether the plaintiff is entitled for the amounts under the said claims? (4) Whether the plaintiff is stopped in view of her conduct to claim the several claims in the suit? (5) To what relief? 5. During the course of trial, on behalf of the plaintiff, PWs. 1 to 4 are examined and Exs.A-1 to A-24 are marked. On behalf of the defendants, DWs. 1 to 3 are examined and Exs.B-1 to B-45 are marked. Exs.X-1 to X-4 are also marked. 6. After completion of the trial and hearing the arguments of both sides, the trial Court dismissed the suit with costs. 7. Heard Sri S. Srinivas Reddy, learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff and Sri Ch. Pavan Kumar, learned counsel, representing Sri Vinod Kumar Tarlada, learned standing counsel for APSRTC on behalf of the respondents/defendants. 8. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would contend that the judgment of the Court below is contrary to law and the Court below erred in not decreeing the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.94,392-46 ps. He would further contend that the Court below erred in holding that the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to differential amount along with interest and he would further contend that the judgment of the trial Court is contrary to law and the same may be set aside by allowing the appeal. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents/APSRTC would contend that on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly dismissed the suit and there is no need to interfere with the finding given by the learned trial Judge. 10. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondents/APSRTC would contend that on appreciation of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge rightly dismissed the suit and there is no need to interfere with the finding given by the learned trial Judge. 10. Now, the points for determination in the appeal are: (1) Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff with costs? (2) To what extent? 11. Point No. 1: Whether the trial Court is justified in dismissing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff with costs? The case of the plaintiff is that she is the owner of the bus bearing registration No. TNG-1299 and she entered into an agreement on 29-01-1986 with the APSRTC by giving her bus on hire for plying on the route specified by the defendants and accordingly, the bus of the plaintiff was operated from Jangareddigudem bus depot to Buttaigudem from 04-02-1986 to 31-12-1986 and though the vehicle of the plaintiff is used by the defendants/ Corporation, they have not paid full payment to the plaintiff and that the plaintiff sought the relief of suit claim before the Court below. 12. The undisputed facts are that the plaintiff is the owner of the bus bearing registration No. TNG-1299 and she gave her bus on hire to the defendants and entered into an agreement with the 1st defendant/APSRTC on 20-01-1986. By agreeing the terms and conditions in the agreement Ex.A-1, both the parties i.e. the plaintiff and the 1st defendant entered into a contract. Admittedly, an agreement under Ex.A-1 was entered into by both the plaintiff and the 1st defendant and the plaintiff claimed plaint A schedule certain amounts payable to her on the ground that the defendants operated her vehicle for excess kilometers, but payment was not made to her as per the actual distance the vehicle actually plied. The claim of the plaintiff is that she is entitled for an amount of Rs.14,043-12 ps as the differential amount for the excess kms. the vehicle was utilized by the defendants during the period from 04-01-1986 to 31-12-1986. In this context, the appellant relied upon Exs.X-1 to X-4. Ex.X-1 is the certificate said to have been issued by the Assistant Engineer, Panchayat Raj Department, that the distance between Jangareddigudem and Buttaigudem is 10 kms. As per Ex.X-1, the distance between Ganganamma Temple to Bungalow Centre, Buttaigudem is 10 kms. In this context, the appellant relied upon Exs.X-1 to X-4. Ex.X-1 is the certificate said to have been issued by the Assistant Engineer, Panchayat Raj Department, that the distance between Jangareddigudem and Buttaigudem is 10 kms. As per Ex.X-1, the distance between Ganganamma Temple to Bungalow Centre, Buttaigudem is 10 kms. As per Ex.X-2, which was issued by the Assistant Executive Engineer, Roads and Buildings Department, Jangareddigudem, the distance between APSRTC Bus Complex out-gate, Jangareddigudem to Ganganamma Temple, Jangareddigudem is 670 kms and the distance in between Bungalow Centre at Buttaigudem to Buttaigudem Centre (Nehru Statue) is 498 kms. Admittedly, the appellant never raised any dispute with the defendants that her vehicle was being operated for excess kms., between Jangareddigudem and Buttaigudem. It is a fact that when the agreement was subsisting, the plaintiff used to submit claims with the defendants and she used to receive payments without any protest. In the case on hand, admittedly at no point of time the appellant raised a dispute that the distance between Jangareddigudem to Buttaigudem is 11.3 kms., but not 10 kms. The appellant issued a legal notice under Ex.A-20 for the first time on 06-3-1989 just before filing of the suit. In the said notice under Ex.A-20, the appellant contended that she got measured the distance in the month of May, 1986 and she came to know that the distance between Jangareddigudem and Buttaigudem is 10.8 kms. Then, what prevented the plaintiff to raise protest with the defendants that the distance in between Jangareddigudem and Buttaigudem is 11.3 kms. but not 10 kms. But, the appellant failed to do so for the reasons best known to her. Having accepted payments from the respondents and having submitted claims with the respondents, the appellant is estopped to raise the said plea. The appellant did not raise any objection before the respondents at any point of time and without protest, the appellant received payments from the defendants. The respondents themselves too collected bus fare from the passengers for distance as 10 kms., only. There is nothing on record to show that the respondents collected fare from the passengers on the ground that the distance between two points is more than 10 kms. Admittedly, the respondents charged the bus fare only for 10 kms., from the passengers. 13. The respondents themselves too collected bus fare from the passengers for distance as 10 kms., only. There is nothing on record to show that the respondents collected fare from the passengers on the ground that the distance between two points is more than 10 kms. Admittedly, the respondents charged the bus fare only for 10 kms., from the passengers. 13. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would contend that the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily imposed fines and penalties and illegally deducted a sum of Rs.17,334-35 ps. Admittedly, the respondents contended under Clause 23 of Ex.A-1 agreement that they were empowered to impose fines and penalties as per Annexure-I to the agreement. Having admitted the terms and conditions of the agreement entered with the respondents, now the appellant cannot plead that the respondents imposed fines and penalties arbitrarily. Ex.A-1 agreement goes to show that the appellant authorized the defendants under Ex.A-1 agreement for imposing fines and penalties. The respondents also assigned reasons for imposing fines and penalties. The contention of the appellant is that no opportunity was given to her while imposing fines and penalties by the respondent authorities. Now, the point is whether the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily imposed fines and penalties on the vehicle of the appellant. As seen from Ex.A-1 agreement, which was entered into with the respondents by the plaintiff, as stated supra, the said agreement is binding on the plaintiff and so also on the 1st respondent/APSRTC. As stated supra, under Clause 23 of Ex.A-1, the respondents are empowered to impose fines and penalties as shown in Annexure-I to the agreement. It is the specific contention of the respondents that if the bus is not supplied by the appellant, the respondent authorities were also empowered to impose conditions for the same and Ex.A-1 also provides a right to the respondents to impose fines and penalties. It is not the case of the appellant that the respondents imposed fines and penalties without any authority. Admittedly, the defendant authorities have assigned reasons for imposing fines and penalties, mostly which are due to late arrival of the vehicle after the scheduled time. To prove the contention of the respondents, the respondents relied on Exs.B-30, B-33, B-35 and B-40. Those documents show the reasons for imposing fines and penalties by the defendants are mostly due to late arrival of the bus by the plaintiff. To prove the contention of the respondents, the respondents relied on Exs.B-30, B-33, B-35 and B-40. Those documents show the reasons for imposing fines and penalties by the defendants are mostly due to late arrival of the bus by the plaintiff. Exs.B-1 to B-26 also shows the reason for late arrival of the bus and consequent imposition of fines and penalties on the appellant. 14. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant would contend that the respondent authorities illegally withheld some of the amount without reimbursing towards tax. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contend that tax was proportionately deducted for the days when the bus was not operated either due to non-supply of the vehicle by the appellant or due to strike by the employees of the APSRTC. The respondents have explained the reasons for deducting tax proportionately. The respondents point out Clause 13 of Ex.A-1 agreement. As stated supra, both the parties relied on Ex.A-1 agreement which was entered by both the parties. Clause 13 of Ex.A-1 says that the Corporation shall reimburse to the owner of the vehicle, the motor vehicle tax payable on the operation carried on and shall be paid to the owner within one week of the next succeeding quarter. The respondents relied upon Ex.B-27. Ex.B-27 goes to show about the details of not supplying of the bus by the plaintiff. On considering Ex.B-27, it is clear that the respondent authorities proportionately deducted the motor vehicle tax payable to the appellant. It is the case of the respondents that the appellant failed to supply the vehicle in those days for which the motor vehicle tax was proportionately withheld. There is no evidence on record to show that the appellant made a demand to the defendants about withholding of motor vehicle tax proportionately. Admittedly, no documentary evidence is filed by the appellant to show that she made a demand before the defendants urging that her bus was made available and that the respondents illegally withheld in reimbursing the motor vehicle tax. Furthermore, Clause 13 in Ex.A-1 empowers the APSRTC authorities to deduct motor vehicle tax proportionately, payable to the appellant for the bus for which the vehicle was not supplied to the Corporation. There is no evidence on record to show that the defendant authorities arbitrarily withheld the motor vehicle tax payable to the appellant. Furthermore, Clause 13 in Ex.A-1 empowers the APSRTC authorities to deduct motor vehicle tax proportionately, payable to the appellant for the bus for which the vehicle was not supplied to the Corporation. There is no evidence on record to show that the defendant authorities arbitrarily withheld the motor vehicle tax payable to the appellant. The respondent authorities have shown the dates for which the vehicle was not supplied by the appellant. It is not the case of the appellant that she supplied the vehicle to the defendants on the specified dates mentioned by the defendants in Ex.B-27. The material on record goes to show that the plaintiff supplied the vehicle during same period, but the bus was not operated due to strike of APSRTC employees. Admittedly, conductor of the bus will be provided by the APSRTC and the appellant has to provide a driver. When the employees of APSRTC went on strike, the vehicle shall not be operated as the Corporation cannot provide a conductor. The strike of employees of APSRTC is beyond the control of the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the deficit in the guaranteed kilometers for the month of September, 1986. 15. Ex.A-1 goes to show that the claim of the owner will be honoured within five days from the date of presentation. There is no clause in Ex.A-1 for claiming interest on delayed payments. It is an admitted fact that the appellant never claimed the amounts shown in the plaint schedule during the subsistence of Ex.A-1 agreement. Therefore, she is estopped from raising the claims after a lapse of considerable time, that too after agreement period was elapsed. Furthermore, the appellant claimed damages at Rs.10,000/- as a result of overloading etc. There is nothing on record to show that the vehicle of the appellant sustained damage as a result of overloading etc. There is no evidence on record to show that the defendants were responsible for damages, if any, sustained by the appellant. By giving cogent reasons, the learned trial Judge rightly dismissed the suit. I do not find any illegality in the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge. Therefore, there are no merits in the present appeal. 16. Point No. 2: To what extent? By giving cogent reasons, the learned trial Judge rightly dismissed the suit. I do not find any illegality in the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge. Therefore, there are no merits in the present appeal. 16. Point No. 2: To what extent? Resultantly, the appeal suit is dismissed, confirming the judgment and decree dated 26-02-1999 in O.S. No. 72 of 1989 passed by the learned trial Judge. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed. Each party do bear their own costs in the appeal.