Punjab-Haryana High Court
Food Corporation Of India And Others vs M/S. Satish Kumar And Brothers ... on 23 April, 2014
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
201
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: 23.04.2014
1. RSA No. 1205 of 1990 (O&M)
Food Corporation of India and others .....Appellants
V/s.
M/s. Satish Kumar and Brothers Commission Agents.....Respondent
2. RSA No. 1206 of 1990 (O&M)
Food Corporation of India and others .....Appellants
V/s.
M/s. Sham Lal Pawan Kumar Commission Agents .....Respondent
3. RSA No. 1383 of 1990 (O&M)
Food Corporation of India and others .....Appellants
V/s.
M/s. Hem Raj Narinder Paul Commission Agents .....Respondent
4. RSA No. 1384 of 1990 (O&M)
Food Corporation of India and others .....Appellants
V/s.
M/s. Madan Lal Mahesh Kumar Commission Agents.....Respondent
5. RSA No. 1385 of 1990 (O&M)
Food Corporation of India and others .....Appellants
V/s.
M/s. Sadhu Ram and Brothers Commission Agents .....Respondent
AND
Divyanshi
2014.04.28 11:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh
-2-
6. RSA No. 1386 of 1990 (O&M)
Food Corporation of India and others .....Appellants
V/s.
M/s. Sadhu Ram Radhey Sham Commission Agents .....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present: Mr. B.S. Walia, Advocate for the appellants.
Mr. Sanjay Majithia, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate for the respondent.
***
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral)
This order shall dispose of six appeals bearing RSA Nos. 1383 to 1386, 1205 and 1206 of 1990. For the sake of convenience, facts are being extracted from RSA No. 1205 of 1990.
In short, the facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 19412 against the defendants on the allegations that the defendants had purchased paddy worth Rs. 6,46,612.08 on 05.11.1982 and Rs. 14861.60 on 19.11.1982 and out of the said amount, made the payment of Rs. 6,48,867/- but an amount of Rs. 12,606.08 was with-held. The defendants did not deny the purchase of the paddy from the plaintiff but it is submitted that defendant No. 3/District Manager, Food Corporation of India was competent to waive shortage of 1% and had waived. Regarding the excess shortage, the plaintiff agreed that if defendant No. 3 would waive the shortage, only then the plaintiff would claim the amount of shortage. It is also alleged by the defendants that all the bills were cleared and nothing remained to be paid.
Divyanshi 2014.04.28 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh RSA No. 1205, 1206, 1383 to 1386 of 1990 (O&M) -3- On the pleading of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court: -
"i) Whether the plaintiff firm is registered firm and Raj Kumar is its registered partner? OPP.
ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of amount claimed for? OPP.
iii) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the suit? OPD.
iv) Relief.".
After recording the evidence of the parties, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed only for the recovery of Rs.12,607/- with proportionate costs. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the trial Court, appeal was filed by the defendants which was also dismissed on 07.02.1990 and hence, the present appeal.
The question involved in this case is as to whether there was shortage at the time when the paddy was purchased by the defendants from the plaintiff. In this regard, finding of fact has been recorded by the appellate Court in para 8 of its judment which reads as under :-
"Admittedly, the appellants have purchased the paddy worth Rs.6,46,612.08 on 5-11-82 and worth Rs.14,861.60 on 19-11-
82. When this purchase was made by the appellants, it has not been shown that there was any shortage of the paddy. There is no evidence on the record that when the bags of the paddy were handed over to the officials of the appellants, then there was shortage. D.W.5 Laxmi Chand Verma, Assistant Manager, admitted the signatures on forms St-XXII Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.9 as that of Mr. Bhatia, the then Assistant Manager Accounts. He also admitted that as per these forms the paddy worth the amounts mentioned in the same was purchased by them. D.W.5 Satnam Singh further clear that at the time of weighment of the Divyanshi paddy they only checked few bags out of the total bags for 2014.04.28 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh RSA No. 1205, 1206, 1383 to 1386 of 1990 (O&M) -4- its weighment. The shortage of the bags comes to their notice within fortnight of its weighment after receipt from the depot. He further admitted that they have no record to ascertain the particular shortage of the plaintiff-firm. The paddy was despatched by D.W.5. Satnam Singh alongwith other members of the staff. He has not deposed in his statement that when he had taken the delivery there was a shortage in the bags of paddy. Rather, he has admitted that they sent the concerned bill and the weight check memo to the Assistant Manager after verifying the same. If the weight of the paddy bags had been checked by D.W.5 Satnam Singh when it was taken over from the respondent then if any shortage occurred after that, for that the plaintiff-respondent is not liable for the same. Admittedly, the appellants have not made the payment claimed by the respondent, so the appellants are liable to pay that amount to the respondent."
Learned counsel for the appellants has however, argued that the plaintiff had given in writing that they would be liable to make good the loss suffered by the defendants and when the payment was made it was accepted as full and final payment. It is thus submitted that the suit filed by the plaintiff was not competent as they had already been paid the entire amount by the defendants. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff has submitted that the letter mark X, relied upon by the defendants, is of no avail to them and in this regard, he has referred to the finding recorded by the appellate Court.
"The letter mark X has not been proved according to the law. So, the letter mark X cannot be read into evidence. Further- more, Satish Kumar, one of the partners of the plaintiff firm has appeared as P.W.1 and this letter was not got confronted from him. So, no reliance can be placed on the letter mark X. Divyanshi 2014.04.28 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh RSA No. 1205, 1206, 1383 to 1386 of 1990 (O&M) -5- He further submits that in any case, the core issue in the case is that as to whether there has been any shortage at the time of delivery of the paddy by the plaintiff to the defendants and in that regard he has strongly relied upon the finding recorded by the appellate Court.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examining the record, I am of the view that there is no error in the judgment of appellate Court as a finding of fact has been recorded that the paddy was delivered to the defendants with proper weight and has been checked and verified by its officers under their signatures.
No other point has been urged.
In view thereof, I do not find any merit in the present appeal as no substantial question of law is involved to interfere into concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below.
Dismissed.
April 23, 2014 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
Divyanshi JUDGE
Divyanshi
2014.04.28 11:24
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh