Mr. Gaurav and Mr. Vikas entered into a contract on 1st July, 2022, according to which Mr. Gaurav had to supply 100 tons of sugar to Mr. Vikas at a certain price strictly within a period of 10 days of the contract. Mr. Vikas also paid an amount of ` 70,000 towards advance as per the terms of the above contract. The mode of transportation available between their places is roadway only. Severe flood came on 2nd July, 2022 and the only road connecting their places was damaged and could not be repaired within fifteen days. Mr. Gaurav offered to supply sugar on 20th July, 2022 for which Mr. Vikas did not agree. On 1st August, 2022, Mr. Gaurav claimed compensation of ` 20,000 from Mr. Vikas for refusing to accept the supply of sugar, which was not there within the purview of the contract. On the other hand, Mr. Vikas claimed for refund of ` 70,000, which he had paid as advance in terms of the contract. Analyse the above situation in terms of the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and decide on Mr. Vikas contention.

Subsequent or Supervening impossibility (Becomes impossible after entering into contract): When performance of promise become impossible or illegal by occurrence of an unexpected event or a change of circumstances beyond the contemplation of parties, the contract becomes void e.g. change in law etc. Also, according to section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, when an agreement is discovered to be void or when a contract becomes void, any person who has received any advantage under such agreement or contract is bound to restore it, or to make compensation for it to the person from whom he received it. In the given question, after Mr. Gaurav and Mr. Vikas have entered into the contract to supply 100 tons of sugar, the event of flood occurred which made it impossible to deliver the sugar within the stipulated time. Thus, the promise in question became void. Further, Mr. Gaurav has to pay back the amount of ` 70,000 that he received from Mr. Vikas as an advance for the supply of sugar within the stipulated time. Hence, the contention of Mr. Vikas is correct.