Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: lorry receipts in Mr S.A. Kumar vs Wyeth Ltd on 5 August, 2025Matching Fragments
4. The plaintiff is one of the leading companies dealing with pharmaceutical formulations, toiletries and other consumer durable items. It is stated that normally stocks are despatched to the stockist on the basis of written/verbal order from the stockist on “self” basis. Once the stockist honours the documents, the banker endorses the consignee copy of the Lorry Receipts (in short, 'LR') in favour of the stockist, to enable the stockist to take delivery of the consignment. The plaintiff's office had entrusted consignments containing various pharmaceutical formulations for transportation of one of its stockists https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 07:05:34 pm ) i.e., 2nd defendant, in six invoices, valued at Rs.4,06,008/- to their stockist/2nd defendant and booked the above consignment through the 1st defendant/transport firm. The consignment were entrusted to the first defendant for transportation from Chennai to Coimbatore, on “Self” basis. The plaintiff's made an endorsement on the back of each consignee copy of lorry receipts in favour of Sangli Bank Ltd., Coimbatore. The first defendant was contractually and legally bound to the plaintiff to deliver the consignment as per the plaintiff's directions only. However, the first defendant delivered the consignments covered under LR Nos.14007 and 14006, both dated 12.12.1997 to the 2nd defendant, though the lorry receipts were not duly endorsed/authorized by the bankers in favour of 2nd defendant. The 1st defendant's action in delivering the consignments without proper verification and authority, is in breach of its contractual obligation towards plaintiff. The 1st defendant has delivered the other consignments covered under lorry receipt Nos.14005, 14012, 14013 and 14014 to other than the consignee. The 1st defendant fully being aware of the significance of “Self” LR, has acted in breach of the agreement and contrary to his contractual obligations towards plaintiff by having delivered the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 07:05:34 pm ) consignments. The first defendant in wrongly delivering the goods to the 2nd defendant as well as to others is in violation of clause 5 and 15 of the terms of the lorry receipt. Therefore, the plaintiff had issued a legal notice dated 04.11.1999 to the 1st defendant and demanding the payment of Rs.4,06,008/-, being the value of the goods together with interest of 18% from the date of invoice till the date of filing of suit. Hence, the suit.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/first defendant would submit that the invoices marked as Ex.A2 to A7, does not show any order which was obtained from the stockiest. The invoices does not reveal the name of the appellant firm and it is mentioned that Annamalai Road Transport had carried the goods. The lorry receipts which are marked as Ex.A8 to A13, there is no mention of the invoice amount and it is booked on “self” basis. There is no evidence that the Exs.A2 to A13 were sent to Sangli Bank Limited, as there is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 07:05:34 pm ) no bank endorsement or seal in the above documents. Further, he submit that the plaintiff company has booked the goods through the 1st defendant/appellant firm without any order from the stockiest and without sending the invoice and lorry receipts and took delivery of the goods through their own employee from the 1st defendant by sending the original lorry receipts and took delivery of the consignment of Anacin tablets. Subsequently, they had also filed a criminal complaint against their own employee. Now the plaintiff had filed the suit for double enrichment and there is no discussion in the judgment with regard to the aspect that there is no correlation between the invoices Exs.A2 to A7 and lorry receipts A8 to A13. Moreover, the plaintiff has filed the Xerox copies of the Lorry Receipt to prove his claim. As per the judgment of this Court in 2002-4- L.W.147 in TITCO Vs. N.Swaminathan and others, wherein it has been held that Xerox copies cannot be marked. Another important factor is that the lorry receipts were not negotiated to the Bank. The trial Court failed to discuss with regard to non-negotiation with the Bank in the judgement. The plaintiff had knowledge of delivery of goods to their own employee on 21.07.1998, but the notice has been issued on 04.11.1999, which is clearly more than six months https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 07:05:34 pm ) from the date of knowledge and the same is not complied with under Section 10 of the Act.
14. The point for determination arises in this appeal are as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 07:05:34 pm )
(i) Whether Section 10 of the Carriers Act, 1865 is applicable to the suit transaction?
(ii) Whether the plaintiff' is entitled to the relief as prayed for?
15. According to the appellant/first defendant that Section 10 of the Act is applicable to the suit transactions. It was further contended that the failure to issue notice under Section 10 of the Act, is fatal. The suit was filed by the first respondent/plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs.6,24,568/-, being Rs.4,06,008/- toward principal and Rs.2,18,560/- towards interest for the financial loss sustained by them due to wrong delivery of the goods by the appellant/first defendant. The first defendant has relied on Ex.B1 letter dated 21.07.1998 issued by the first defendant to the plaintiff to acknowledge receipt of the delivery receipts. On perusal of Ex.B1 letter shows that it does not proved that the consignment was rightly delivered. However, the same reveals that the plaintiff has indeed handed over the goods to the first defendant. The Lorry Receipts being LR Nos.14005, 14007, 14006, 14012, 14013 and 14014 issued by the first defendant to the plaintiff is reflected in the Ex.B1 (letter). https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 19/08/2025 07:05:34 pm )