Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

23. It is relevant to mention that sub clause (b) of Clause 12 of the Transport Agreement makes it obligatory for the petitioner to strictly adhere with the terms and conditions of the ITDG. It may be relevant to mention that clause No. 8.2.2.1 of the ITDG defines malpractices to include, inter­alia, unauthorized deviation from specified route/unauthorized delay and clause No. 8.2.2.11 provides for tampering with standard fittings of TT including the sealing, security locks, security locking system, calibration, as one of the malpractice/irregularity. In addition to Clause 15(e) of the transport agreement provides for that pilferage/short delivery of product and any act of the carrier/carrier's representative that may be harmful to the good name/image of the Oil Company, its products or its services, will be treated as breach of the terms and conditions of the Transport Agreement.

"1. False/hidden compartment, unauthorised fittings or alteration in standard fittings affecting Quality and Quantity.
2. Illegal/un­authorised duplicate keys of security locks.
3. Duplicate dip rod/calibration chart."

The case of the petitioner case is falling within two conditions i.e. condition nos. 1 & 3.

25. It is relevant to state that a conjoint reading of Sub­ Clauses (a) & (c) of clause no. 9 of the Transport Agreement and relevant clauses of ITDG including Clause No. 8.2.2 of the ITDG makes it clear that it is the carrier, who is responsible for safe delivery of the petroleum products petitioner to the destination and that in case of certain malpractices, as stated above, the complicity of the carrier/petitioner is deemed to be existent leading to termination of the whole contract, along with forfeiture of security deposit and the concerned carrier and their all the TTs are to be blacklisted on industry basis. In addition to it, the carrier/petitioner also liable to pay for product loss from the date of last calibration OMP (Comm.) No. 2213/2018 Laxmi Oil Carrier v. Indian Oil & Ors. DOD : 14.01.2020 as provided under Clause 2.3.6 of ITDG. The respondent no. 1 has taken the legal action against petitioner as per the terms and conditions of the agreement as well as the ITDG guideline and Ld. Arbitrator has taken a plausible view of the admission of petitioner including admission of petitioner's driver and thereafter, action taken by respondent no. 1 against petitioner as per rules and regulations.

28. So far as the contention for setting aside the recovery of amount of Rs. 79,33,920/­ sought to be recovered by the respondent no. 1 towards the product losses suffered from the date of last calibration, the ld. sole Arbitrator had, after taking into consideration the fact that were categorical admissions of the petitioner as well as the driver of the said TT about the malpractices of tampering with standard fittings affecting the OMP (Comm.) No. 2213/2018 Laxmi Oil Carrier v. Indian Oil & Ors. DOD : 14.01.2020 quantity of the product and also ample evidence/material on record, such as, the Statement of the driver of the said TT, Inspection Report dated 10.07.2017, photographs taken during inspection conducted on 10.07.2017, etc. which clearly go to show that the standard fittings of the said TT were altered by the driver of petitioner in such a manner that it affected the quantity of the product and as well as calibration of the said TT. The Ld. Arbitrator has observed that Clause 2.3.6 of the ITDG is squarely applicable to the case and the respondent has rightly sought to recover a sum of Rs. 79,33,920/­, the same being the amount recoverable as product losses from 20.05.2017 as the said TT was last inspected/calibrated on 19.05.2017, as per the calculation sheet. It may be noted that Clause No. 2.3.6 of the ITDG stipulates that tampering with calibration of vehicle in any manner shall be construed as a malpractice and penal action will be taken against the carrier as outlined under Clause No. 8. It further provides that alleged product losses will be recovered from the petitioner from the date of last calibration. This amount of damages has been calculated as per the calculation sheet filed by respondent no. 1 and during the course of arguments Counsel for petitioner could not point out as to how there calculation are contrary to the record available with respondent. In addition to it, it may be relevant to note here that these damages/calculation is permissible as per law laid down in ONGC Vs. Saw Pipes Ltd. AIR 2005 SCC 2426.

29. As far as the contention of the petitioner that the entire fleet of petitioner's TTs should not have been blacklisted and only OMP (Comm.) No. 2213/2018 Laxmi Oil Carrier v. Indian Oil & Ors. DOD : 14.01.2020 the defaulting TT should have been blacklisted, suffice is to say that a careful comparison of Clause 8.2.2.16 with Clause 8.2.2.11 of the ITDG alongwith the note appended to Clause 8.2.2 makes it abundantly clear that the Clause 8.2.2.11 is clearly applicable to the case in hand as in much as the unauthorized fittings and/or alteration in standard fittings were made in such a manner that the calibration of the said TT as well as the quantity of the product stood affected. It is relevant to observe that the said Clause 8.2.2.16 is applicable only in cases where tampering with standard fittings of TT including the sealing locks and/or security locking system and/or calibration without affecting quality and/or quantity is resorted to. The Ld. Sole Arbitrator has rightly held, that the complicity of the petitioner's carrier is deemed to be existent in terms of the note appended to Clause 8.2.2 and further, that the respondent no. 1 has, rightly blacklisted the entire fleet of petitioner's TTs for a period of 2 years after terminating the Transportation Agreement; and, forfeited the security deposit. These findings of the facts has been recorded by Ld. Arbitrator after appreciating the facts on record as well as the various clauses of the Transport Agreement & ITDG guidelines. The said findings of facts cannot be interfered with as per the law law laid down by Superior Courts detailed in the foregoing paras of this orders.