Delhi District Court
J.R. Rice India Private Limited vs Varun Foods on 2 December, 2024
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-01, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PRESIDED OVER BY SH. SAHIL KHURMI
CNR No:-DLCT030033232021
CS SCJ No.1643/2021
M/s J.R. Rice India Private Limited
through
Shri Ashok Pandey, Authorised Broker,
5593-9, Lahori Gate, Main Road,
New Delhi-110006. ....Plaintiff
Versus
1. Mr. Varun Foods
Plot No.7/260, Shiv Shakti Nagar,
Jellaguda Village,
Balapur Mandal,
Hyderabad, Telangana,
Through the Managing Director
2. Sh. Parmesh Reddy
Managing Director
Plot No.7/260, Shiv Shakti Nagar,
Jellaguda Village,
Balapur Mandal,
Hyderabad, Telangana,
3. Sh. Narayan Reddy
Plot No.:-384,
House No:-3-17/11/11,
Road No.11, Nandal Hills,
Meerpet, Sroornagar,
Hyderabad-500097 ....Defendant
Digitally
signed by
CS SCJ No.1643/2021 Sahil Sahil Khurmi
Date:
Page No.1 of 15
Khurmi 2024.12.02
16:16:40
+0530
Date of institution of suit 05.08.2021
Date on which reserved for judgment 16.10.2024
Date of pronouncement of judgment 02.12.2024
Decision Dismissed
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.2,00,000/-.
JUDGMENT
BRIEF FACTS
1. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts as per the plaint are that the plaintiff is a registered firm under the name and style of M/s J.R. Rice India Private Limited engaged in the business of rice and is working as rice processors and exporters.
1.2 It is the case of the plaintiff that an order was placed by the defendants and vice invoice No.2706C dated 13.08.2019 for delivery of rice of quantity 7.5MT (300 bags of 25 kgs), the plaintiff carried out the job as per the order and instructions of defendant's managing director and submitted the final bill on 13.08.2019 and the consignment was dispatched on the prior approval of rice quality and quantity of the Varun Foods.
1.3 It is further stated that after the passage of few week the defendants raised objections as to the quality of rice, which was raised by the defendants after selling 58 bags of rice out of the 300 bags of rice. That with the left over 242bags of rice the defendants created issues of quality. The defendants asked the plaintiff to take the dispatch back.
Digitally signedSahil by Sahil Khurmi Date:
CS SCJ No.1643/2021 Khurmi 2024.12.02
16:16:47 +0530 Page No.2 of 15
1.4 It is further stated that deal between the plaintiff and the
defendants was fixed at Delhi only after quality check of rice by the defendants and also before the loading of the goods at Delhi the quality of the rice was verified by the defendants and also as a trade formality a sample was sent to the defendants on 02.09.2020 and an approval was received by the plaintiff in this regard from the defendants as per the quality of rice.
1.5 It is further stated that a trader would not unload the goods without prior checking the quality of the goods. That the very pattern of behavior displayed by the defendants by unloading the rice and keeping the consignment for one month before approaching the plaintiff is self explanatory of the ill motives and planned moves of the defendants.
1.6 It is further stated that it was agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that consignment would be dispatched to Varshini Agencies at Bangaluru, by the defendants and defendants as per the ethics of the trade agreed to take proper precautions in packaging and delivering the said consignment to Varshini Agencies. It is further stated that the defendants violated the ethics and showed utmost negligence in delivering the consignment to Bengaluru due to which the entire lot of rice got wet in the rain and became rot.
1.7 It is further stated that defendants neither did any mandatory transit insurance of the goods nor did any covering/packaging of the rice. That the truck on which the rice was loaded had no number plate and the vehicle insurance was valid till 06.09.2020 CS SCJ No.1643/2021 Digitally signed Page No.3 of 15 by Sahil Khurmi Sahil Date:
Khurmi 2024.12.02
16:16:54
+0530
and on 13.09.2020 the material was loaded by the defendant and the licence of the driver of truck was also not available/valid. That the plaintiff's coordinator at Bangaluru witnessed all the above scenario.
1.8 It is further stated that when the truck reached Bangaluru, the Varshini Agencies refused to unload the goods as the rice was spoiled in the transit from Hyderabad to Bangaluru and a written note was written by Varshini Agencies to the defendants in this regards.
1.9 It is further stated that after the passage of some time, when the plaintiff was not paid the balance amount by the defendants then the plaintiff made reminders to the defendant through various modes of communications which includes personal visits to Hyderabad. That the defendants accepted their liability of the balance payment and promised to pay the same. That as per rule the payment was supposed to be done within 60 days from issuance of the invoice by the plaintiff but the same was not done at appropriate time. That despite accepting the liability to pay the outstanding balance amount by the defendants, the defendant did not make any payment to the plaintiff and thereafter the plaintiff has got sent a legal notice on 23.09.2020 to the defendants for payment of due amount, which was returned undelivered on 28.09.2020. That thereafter the plaintiff sent a mail to the defendants on 30.09.2020, to which reply was sent by the defendants to the plaintiff's lawyer on 05.09.2020 in which the defendants blatantly refused to make the payment. That thereafter plaintiff in lieu of the remaining payment issued a debit note of CS SCJ No.1643/2021 Page No.4 of 15 Digitally signed Sahil by Sahil Khurmi Date: Khurmi 2024.12.02 16:16:59 +0530 Rs.2,00,000/- in various notes such as Rs.14,000/- on 14.02.2020, Rs.18,500/- on 11.09.2020, Rs.20,000/- on 07.09.2020, Rs.19,500/- on 13.02.2020, Rs.21,500/- on 10.09.2020, Rs.19,500/- on 08.09.2020, Rs.19,000/- on 14.09.2020, Rs.20,000/- on 17.12.2020, Rs.25,000/- on 10.11.2020, Rs.16,500/- on 15.02.2020, Rs.20,500/- on 09.09.2020 to the authorised broker, who is the authorised representative of the plaintiff in the present suit and therefore zeroed the balance in the ledger account maintained by the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit for recovery has been filed.
2. Summons of the suit have been served on the defendants, upon which defendants appeared through counsel and the matter was listed for filing of written statement on behalf of defendant.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF DEFENDANT
3. It is the case of the defendant that the present suit is not maintainable. It is further stated that the goods delivered to the defendants were further forwarded to M/s Varshini Agencies Bengaluru upon the specific instructions of the plaintiff company, and as such no cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. That the present suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts from this Court. That plaintiff company is into fraudulent practice of mixing goods quality of rice with the sub standard quality of rice with the sole intention to make earn illegal and unlawful profits. That plaintiff company very cleverly mixed the approved quality of rice with that of sub standard rice and said factum is proved on the facts Digitally signed CS SCJ No.1643/2021 Sahil by Sahil Khurmi Page No.5 of 15 Date:
Khurmi 2024.12.02 16:17:05 +0530 of it when even the M/s Varshini Agencies, Bengaluru rejected the rice dispatched by the defendants upon the specific instructions of the plaintiff company. That cost of transportation of the rice from Hyderabad to Bengaluru was made to be borne by the defendants by plaintiff company and as such the present suit is liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs. That the present suit is bad in law in as much as the plaintiff company in the garb of the present suit is trying to extract illegal and unlawful money from the defendants. It is further stated that complaint against the sub standard rice was not only made by the defendants and M/s Varshini Enterprises but also by the retailers to whom the rice bags were dispatched by the defendants. It is further stated that the S.M. Agencies, Kurnool and Ramakrishna Kirana General Stores of Mehboob Nagar, Telangana, return ed the rice bags of the plaintiff company being sub standard as such the present suit is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that the present suit is hit by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure for non joiner and mis joinder of necessary parties. That plaintiff has deliberately and intentionally not impleaded M/s Varshini Enterprises as a defendant to the present suit knowing fully well that the goods were delivered to them by the defendants upon specific instructions of the plaintiff company which is an admitted fact and the same cannot be denied by the plaintiff company and as such the present suit is liable to be dismissed. It is further stated that the present suit deserves dismissal at the outset for the sole reason that the case of the plaintiff is based upon conjectures and surmises. It is further stated that the defendants who are entitled for the refund of around Rs.19,750/- from the plaintiff company besides the huge losses and damages incurred due to illegal and deceitful practices CS SCJ No.1643/2021 Digitally signed Page No.6 of 15 Sahil by Sahil Khurmi Date:
Khurmi 2024.12.02
16:17:10 +0530
followed by the plaintiff company of mixing goods quality of rice with that of the sub standard quality of rice and as such the present suit is liable to be dismissed. That the present suit is based upon contradictions and inconsistencies. It is further stated that on one hand the plaintiff company claims an outstanding of Rs.2,00,000/- from the defendants whereas the statement of account sent to the defendants along with the legal notice reflected an outstanding to be Rs.1,45,000/-. It is further stated that the defendants have paid an amount of Rs.20,500/- vide receipt No.5775 dated 09.09.2020, Rs. 18,500/- vide receipt No.5786 dated 11.09.2020, Rs.19,500/- vide receipt No.5762 dated 08.09.2020, Rs. 21,500/- vide receipt No.5782 dated 10.09.2020 and Rs. 20,000/- vide receipt No.5761 dated 07.09.2020. It is further stated that upon the specific and categorical instructions of the plaintiff company, the sub standard quality of rice was dispatched by the defendants to one M/s Varshini Enterprises, Bengaluru and the transportation cost of Rs.62,750/- has been paid by the defendants from Delhi to Hyderabad and from Hyderabad to Bengaluru and back from Bengaluru to Hyderabad and as such the present suit is liable to be dismissed in limine.
4. No replication has been filed on behalf of plaintiff and thereafter on completion of pleadings, following issues were framed:
ISSUES NO. 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of recovery of sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, as prayed for? OPP
2. Relief.
Digitally signed by Sahil Sahil Khurmi CS SCJ No.1643/2021 Khurmi Date:
2024.12.02 Page No.7 of 1516:17:15 +0530 PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE:-
5. Plaintiff in order to prove his case has got examined Authorised Broker of the plaintiff (Sh. Ashok Pandey) as a witness PW-1. PW-1 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied on the following documents:-
Mark A Photocopy of bill.
Ex.PW1/2 Form of GST registration of Varun
Foods.
Mark B Photocopy of E-way bill.
Ex.PW1/4 Latest ID proof of Authorised Broker.
(OSR)
Mark C Photocopy of bill of supply of Varshini
Agencies.
Mark E Photocopy of transportation slip.
Mark D(colly) Copies of photographs.
Ex.PW1/8(colly) Office copy of legal notice, reply to
legal notice.
Ex.PW1/9(colly) Photocopy of ten debit notes issued by
plaintiff company against the broker.
(OSR)
Ex.PW1/10 Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence
Act.
5.1 PW-1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for
defendant and thereafter plaintiff evidence was closed on separate statement of plaintiff and the matter was fixed for defence evidence.
Digitally signed Sahil by Sahil Khurmi CS SCJ No.1643/2021 Date: Page No.8 of 15 Khurmi 2024.12.02 16:17:21 +0530 5.2 It is pertinent to mention that defendants did not wish to lead
any defence and therefore defence evidence was closed on 07.09.2024 and thereafter the matter was fixed for hearing final arguments.
6. I have heard the counsels for the parties and perused the record of the case meticulously.
FINDINGS ON ISSUES ISSUE NO.1:-Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of recovery of sum of Rs.2,00,000/-, as prayed for? OPP
7. The onus to prove this issue is on the plaintiff. It is the case of plaintiff that vide invoice No.2706C dated 13.08.2019, he supplied 300 bags of 25 kgs rice to the defendant and raised a final bill of Rs.4,87,817/-. That after few weeks defendant raised objections as to the quality of rice after selling 58 rice bags out of 300 bags. That as trade formality a sample was sent to defendant on 02.09.2020. That it was agreed between the parties that the consignment would be dispatched to Varshini Agencies at Bengaluru by the defendant and the defendants did not take proper precaution in delivering the said consignment as a result entire lot of rice got wet in the rain and became rot. That defendant did not get any transit insurance of the goods and the vehicle insurance was also not valid as on the date of delivery and the license of the driver of the truck was also not available. Hence, the present suit has been filed for the outstanding payment.
Digitally signedSahil by Sahil Khurmi Date:
CS SCJ No.1643/2021 Khurmi 2024.12.02
16:17:26 +0530
Page No.9 of 15
8. Per contra, it is the case of defendant that the goods were delivered at Bengaluru to M/s Varshini Agencies on the specific instructions of the plaintiff company. That the defendant duly delivered the goods to the transporter and the further responsibility was of the transporter and not the defendant. That the goods supplied by the plaintiff were sub standard and even Varshini Agencies Bengaluru rejected the rice.
AUTHORITY OF PLAINTIFF PW-1 SH. ASHOK PANDEY
9. During the cross examination of the plaintiff dated 14.08.2024, the authority of PW-1 Sh. Ashok Pandey to file the present case being a broker of the plaintiff company was challenged by the defendant. During his cross examination dated 14.08.2024, PW-1 stated that JR Rice Pvt Ltd verbally instructed him to file the present suit. He further admitted that there is no written authority letter or board resolution issued to him to file the present suit. No person or any director of plaintiff company namely J.R. Rice India Pvt Ltd was examined by PW-1 to prove that he was properly authorized on behalf of the plaintiff company to file the present case. PW-1 Sh. Ashok Pandey is admittedly a broker of the plaintiff company and not working with the plaintiff company and there is no authority letter or any board resolution issued in his favour to file and prosecute the present case on behalf of the plaintiff company. At the cost of repetition, it is reiterated that no director of the plaintiff company was examined to prove that Sh. Ashok Pandey was verbally instructed by them to file the present suit. No documentary or oral evidence has been filed on record by Sh. Ashok Pandey to prove that he was duly authorized CS SCJ No.1643/2021 Digitally signed Page No.10 of 15 Sahil by Sahil Khurmi Date:
Khurmi 2024.12.02 16:17:32 +0530 to file and prosecute the present case on behalf of the plaintiff company. No cogent and clinching evidence has been filed on record by Sh. Ashok Pandey to prove that he was duly authorized to file and prosecute the present case on behalf of the plaintiff company.
10. Accordingly, this Court has come to irresistible conclusion that Sh. Ashok Pandey has no authority to file the present suit and claim recovery of money for the invoice in question on behalf of the plaintiff company namely J.R. Rice India Pvt Ltd. For this reason alone, the plaintiff is not entitled to recovery of money as prayed in the present suit.
11. It is not the case of the plaintiff that after keeping 58 bags out of 300 bags the defendant didn't return the remaining goods.
Had it been so, it would have been the duty of the defendant to return the same to the plaintiff, failing which the defendant would have been liable to pay for the remaining goods. However, in the present case, admittedly the plaintiff himself told the defendants to forward the remaining bags to Varshini Agencies, Bengaluru. It is undisputed and uncontroverted fact that plaintiff Sh. Ashok Pandey instructed the defendants to forward the goods to M/s Varshini Agencies Bengaluru. The same is also admitted by PW-1 Sh. Ashok Pandey in his cross examination dated 06.08.2024. There is nothing filed on record on behalf of the plaintiff to show that it was obligatory on the part of the defendant to get transit insurance of the goods before delivering the same to Bengaluru. Neither the said fact is stated by PW-1 Sh. Ashok Pandey in his entire pleadings nor any document has been filed by him to prove CS SCJ No.1643/2021 Digitally signed Page No.11 of 15 Sahil by Sahil Khurmi Date:
Khurmi 2024.12.02 16:17:38 +0530 that the defendants were asked to get the transit insurance of the goods in question before forwarding the goods to M/s Varshini Agencies, Bengaluru. There is no written agreement between the parties mandating that the transit insurance were to be done by the defendants. Even no person on behalf of Varshini Agencies was examined on behalf of the plaintiff to prove that it was agreed between the parties that transit insurance of the goods was to be done by the defendants.
12. It is also pertinent to note that PW-1 Sh. Ashok Pandey admitted in his cross examination that he made communications with the defendant through whatsapp and he has not filed on record any single communication made with the defendants. PW-1 admitted in his cross examination dated 14.08.2024 that M/s Varshini Agencies is the buyer of plaintiff and goods were supplied to M/s Varshini Agencies by the defendant on the instructions of the plaintiff. If M/s Varshini Agencies was a regular buyer of the plaintiff then it was the bounden duty of the plaintiff to execute an agreement or at least give specific instructions/directions to the defendant for getting the transit insurance before delivering the goods so that the loss of rice by rain should have been compensated by the insurance company. Moreover, the plaintiff has not filed on record proof of any communication made to the defendants for getting the transit insurance done by the defendants.
NON-FILING OF LEDGER ACCOUNT STATEMENT:
13. It is interesting to note that PW-1 Sh. Ashok Pandey has Digitally signed by Sahil Sahil Khurmi Date:
CS SCJ No.1643/2021 Khurmi 2024.12.02
16:17:45 Page No.12 of 15
+0530
admitted in his cross examination that he has not filed ledger account on record. The first and foremost thing before filing a suit for recovery in the case of part payment is to file the ledger account statement showing the outstanding sum of money on a particular date. The plaintiff has contended that part payments were received from the defendant on several dates, but the plaintiff has not filed on record its ledger account statement showing the aforesaid part payments and the alleged outstanding liability of the defendants.
DOCUMENTS NOT PROVED BY THE PLAINTIFF
14. It is apposite to mention that the vital documents of the present suit i.e. bill, transportation slip etc i.e. Mark A to Mark E have not been proved by the plaintiff as per the rules of evidence. The plaintiff has filed photocopy of bill/invoice in the present suit. The plaintiff has not filed any plausible explanation as to the whereabouts of the original bill or invoice.
15. Further, the plaintiff has failed to lead secondary evidence to prove the aforesaid bill/invoice qua which the present suit is filed. The plaintiff has relied on Certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.PW1/10. A bare perusal of the same transpires that the same is not filed as per the mandate of law. It is mandatory to mention in the said certificate as to from which device/digital record source (computer, DVR, Mobile, PEN Drive, CD/DVD, Server, Cloud, the electronic record) was produced. Moreover the make and model, serial number, IMEI/UIN/UID/MAC/Cloud ID (as applicable) has to be specified. It is further mandatory to depose in the said certificate that the digital device or digital record CS SCJ No.1643/2021 Digitally signed Page No.13 of 15 Sahil by Sahil Khurmi Date:
Khurmi 2024.12.02 16:17:50 +0530 source was under the lawful control of the deponent and the computer or the communication device was working properly. It is further mandatory to depose that if the computer/digital device at any point of time was not working properly or out of operation, then it has not effected the electronic/digital record or its accuracy. Even the HASH value of the electronic/digital record is also to be mentioned.
16. Section 65B (4) specifically provides that the certificate has to identify the electronic record containing the statement and describing the manner in which it was produced. It further provides that the particulars of the device involved in the production of that electronic record have to be given.
17. PW-1 Sh. Ashok Pandey has not adhered to the mandatory requirements of section 65B for leading secondary evidence and the said Ex. PW1/10 is merely a paper document in the form of supporting affidavit. Since the vital and germane documents i.e. the invoice/bill and the transportation slips are not proved by the plaintiff, it demolishes the entire edifice of the case of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has failed to prove his case on the preponderance of probability. For the reasons aforementioned the present issue is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
RELIEF
18. For the reasons aforementioned, the case of the plaintiff is dismissed.
Digitally
signed by
Sahil Sahil Khurmi
Date:
19. No order as to costs. Khurmi 2024.12.02
16:17:55
+0530
CS SCJ No.1643/2021 Page No.14 of 15
20. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
21. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open
court today on 02.12.2024 Digitally signed
by Sahil Khurmi
Sahil Date:
Khurmi 2024.12.02
16:18:00
+0530
(SAHIL KHURMI)
Civil Judge-1, Central District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CS SCJ No.1643/2021 Page No.15 of 15