Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jullundur Ex-Servicemen Motor ... vs Muni Lal Sharma on 10 April, 1986
Equivalent citations: AIR1988P&H35, AIR 1988 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 35, 1986 REVLR 392
JUDGMENT
1. Muni Lal Sharma, sole proprietor of M/s. Saraswati Resin and Chemical Works, entrusted 45 barrels containing nine thousand liters of turpentine oil worth Rs 9630/- at the rate of Re. 1.07 per litre to M/s S. B. Saini Brothers, who are the agents of the Jullundur Ex-Servicemen Motor Transport Co-operative Society for their transport to Bombay. Muni Lal Sharma got G. R. No. 270579 dated 27-8-1968 to be delivered to self at Bombay. There was a contract by Muni Lal Sharma for the delivery of the turpentine oil to M/s S. H. Kalkar & Co. Private Limited, Bombay. The goods receipt was sent by Muni Lal Sharma through ha bankers for being presented to the Bombay firm on payment of the price of the goods and to make the endorsement in favour of the Bombay firm. The bankers presented the documents to the Bombay firm and the Bombay firm on payment of the price released the documents along with the goods receipt duly endorsed in their favour. When they were not supplied the barrels of turpentine oil, they represented to the sender. When he got in touch with the agent of the transport company it transpired that the goods had not been sent to Bombay. The senders were assured that the goods would be traced and delivered.
2. Since it was taking time, the Bombay firm asked the senders to deliver the requisite quantity of turpentine oil As a result Muni Lal Sharma dispatched fresh consignment of 45 barrels of turpentine oil to the Bombay firm through another transport company in replacement of those forty five barrels. On receipt of the goods the Bombay firm endorsed back the goods receipt in favour of Muni Lal Sharma regarding the first consignment and returned the relevant documents along with the goods receipt to deal with the transport company and its agent. When in spite of requests neither the turpentine oil was returned nor payment was made, the present suit was instituted.
3. The trial Court dismissed the suit but the lower Appellate Court decreed the suit This is second appeal by the transport company and its agent
4. The sole point raised before me is that the ownership of the goods had passed on to the Bombay firm the moment it was delivered to the transport company of Hoshiarpur and therefore, it was the Bombay firm alone who was entitled to file the suit for recovery of the compensation for the booked goods. In support of the argument, reliance was placed on section 39 of the Sale of Goods Ad and J.K.M. Yacab Rowther Sons, Mettupalayam v. Union of India, AIR 1965 Mad 162.
5. After considering the matter, I am of the view that the e is no merit whatsoever in this appeal. The facts of the present case are distinguishable. Here the goods did not pass on to t he Bombay firm at the time of delivery to the transport company. The transport company was the agent of the Hoshiarpur concern as G.R. was self, i.e. in the name of the Hoshiarpur concern and the goods were to reach Bombay as the property of the Hoshiarpur concern. Only on realisation of the goods receipt from the Bombay bank on payment and on the endorsement of the goods receipt to the Bombay firm, the Bombay firm would have been able to become the owners of the goods In this case this did not happen. The goods did not reach the destination at all. It is true that the Bombay firm realised the documents from the bankers on payment, and obtained endorsement of delivery of the goods in their. favour. However, this endorsement was cancelled and the papers were sent back to the Hoshiarpur concern for taking delivery of the goods or for recovering its price in case the goods were not returned. Of course, if the goods had passed on to the Bombay firm on delivery to the transport company then of course the matter would have been different Hence, neither the section nor the decision relied upon helps the appellants.
6. For the reasons recorded above, this appeal is dismissed with costs.
7. Appeal dismissed.