Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This is defendants' appeal against the judgment and decree dt. 30-7-87 passed by the Assistant District Judge No. 2, Cachar, Silchar, whereby the plaintiff respondent's suit for recovery of Rupees 21,433.50 paise was decreed against the defendants-appellants.

2. The plaintiff had filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 21,433.50 p. from the defendants, the State of Maghalaya and its officers, on the allegations that the plaintiff was an approved dealer in "non-levy" cement and other building materials and had been carrying on business at Shillongpatty, Silchar. The plaintiff through her husband had on 30-6-85 purchased 500 bags of non-levy cement from the defendant No. 9 at Gauhati on cash payment of Rs.43,500/- which included Rs. 1500/- as lorry freight advance for despatch through the defendant No. 8. The plaintiff's husband after the transaction had left Gauhati on getting assurance from the defendants Nos. 8 and 9 that said 500 bags of cement would be delivered at the plaintiff's premises by truck to be arranged by the carrier defendant No. 8. After waiting for some time, on 6-7-85 information was received that the defendants 6 and 7 had illegally and arbitrarily detained the two trucks carrying the plaintiff's 500 bags of non-levy cement from Gauhati to Silchar via Meghalaya State at Umkiang Police and Supply Check gate. The plaintiff stated that after some personal effort by the plaintiff's husband, on 11-7-85 Truck bearing registration No. MLK 499 arrived at Silchar with 200 bags of cement and at the time of taking delivery, it was found that 55 bags of cement had been totally clotted and had become stone. The other truck bearing registration No. NLN 3635 reached Silchar on 12-7-85 and delivered 200 bags of cement at the plaintiff's business premises, out of which four bags had become totally clotted and had become stone. The plaintiff stated that the defendants were liable for the damage and loss caused to the plaintiff's goods.

7. I have considered the submissions for the parties and the evidence on record.

8. The points which arise for consideration are firstly that whether the court at Silchar had jurisdiction to try the suit, and secondly that whether the State of Meghalaya was liable for the acts of its servants.

9. In so far as the first point is concerned, Sri A. Sarma, learned Government Advocate, Meghalaya, has argued that the cause of action for the suit had arisen at Umkiang Police and Supply Check gate within the State of Meghalaya and accordingly the territorial jurisdiction for the suit was with the courts in Meghalaya and that the suit could not have been filed at Silchar in the State of Assam. The submission for the respondent plaintiff, on the other hand, was that the cause of action had partly arisen at Silchar where the plaintiff had found the damaged goods and therefore the court at Silchar had jurisdiction.

10. The undisputed facts are that the plaintiff carried on business in "non-levy cement" at Silchar, the plaintiff's husband had purchased 500 bags of cement from Gauhati and the same was being transported from Gauhati to Silchar by road in two trucks bearing registration Nos. MLK 499 and NLN 3635. The said road runs through the State of Meghalaya which on the way has a Police and Supply Check gate at Umkiang. The said two trucks had arrived at Umkiang Police and Supply Check gate and had been stopped by the defendants 6 and 7 who were in charge of the said Check gate. It is also not disputed that each of the said trucks carried two hundred bags of cement under one challan and fifty bags of cement each under another challan. The two trucks were stopped at the said check gate and were not allowed to proceed. The cement was unloaded or partly unloaded. It appears that due to removal of tarpaulin cover of the trucks, the cement was damaged by rain water. It is also not disputed that the plaintiff received some damaged cement and some, i.e. 100 bags was not delivered at all.

16. In the instant case, while it is true that the trucks had been stopped at Umkiang Police and Supply Check Gate within the State of Meghalaya and the act was done in the State of Meghalaya, but the fact also remains that the plaintiff at Silchar had found some of the cement when it was delivered clotted and had become stone or useless as cement and some was not delivered at all. In my opinion it would not be incorrect to say that the wrong was not done to the plaintiff in regard to said movable property, i.e. the cement at Silchar where the goods in that condition were delivered to her. I hold that in the instant case the wrong done to movable property, i.e. the cement of the plaintiff was also at Silchar and consequently the suit for compensation for said wrong done was within the territorial jurisdiction of the court at Silchar.