AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P.D. Dinakaran, J.—The appellant in the above second appeal is the plaintiff in the O.S.No.3411 of 1983 on the file of the X Assistant City
Civil Court, Madras, laid for:
(a)declaring that the defendants are liable to pay to the plaintiff charges for unloading from wagon on platform and for loading bags from platform
on trucks separately as each is a separate operation as per the terms of the contract and as documented by the Food Corporation of India
Supervising Staff;
(b)mandatory injunction directing the defendants to pay to the plaintiff separate charges for each of the operations, namely unloading bags from
wagons on platform and for loading bags from platform in trucks as per the terms of the contract;
(c)declaring that the defendants are not entitled to make deductions in the bills of the plaintiff for demurrages and wharfage charges without
quantifying the amounts and fixing the responsibility;
(d)permanent injunction restraining the defendants from making deductions from the bills of the plaintiff in respect of demurrages and wharfage
without quantifying the amounts and fixing the responsibility; and
(e)directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.12,475.70 to the plaintiff together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of plaint
till the repayment in full, based on a contract entered by the appellant/plaintiff with the respondent/defendant - Corporation, for loading food grains
at the goods shed Katpadi and unloading them at Sevur Godown Complex of the respondent/defendant - Corporation.
As per clause XX (8) of the tender notification, which was marked as Ex.A1, the contractor shall collect the relevant railway receipts and
arrange to take delivery of the consignment within the free time allowed by the railways.
Alleging that the appellant/plaintiff had not discharged his contractual obligation of loading and unloading the food grains within the free time, a
sum of Rs.9483.80 had been deducted by the respondent/defendant - Corporation from the bill amount of the appellant/plaintiff towards
demurrage and wharfage charges paid by the respondent/defendant - Corporation for the delayed unloading of food grain, only with respect of
which we are concerned in the above second appeal.
Since the respondent/defendant - Corporation deducted thus a sum of Rs.9483.80 towards demurrage and wharfage charges, which was said
to have been paid by the said Corporation to the railway authorities, the plaintiff has filed the above suit, which is the subject matter in the above
second appeal, in addition to a sum of Rs.2991.90 towards the bill amount for unloading the food grains to the platform and then loading the same
to the vehicle, about which we are not concerned in the above second appeal.
The suit was resisted by the respondent/defendant - Corporation based on Exs.B3 and B7, under which the respondent/defendant -
Corporation, is said to have requested the appellant/plaintiff to unload the food grains at Katpadi station within the free time and transport the same
to Sevur Depot by truck.
Even though the trial Court by decree and judgment dated 8.2.1986 in O.S.No.3411 of 1983 held that the alleged demurrage and wharfage
charges were deducted from the bill amount of the appellant/plaintiff without any basis; and that the said deduction was made without conducting
any enquiry or providing any opportunity to the appellant/plaintiff, on appeal, the learned IV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Madras, by
judgment and decree dated 14.1.1988 made in A.S.No.398 of 1987 reversed the judgment and decree dated 8.2.1986 in O.S.No.3411 of 1983,
allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit with respect to the decree for a sum of Rs.9483.80 towards demurrage and wharfage charges holding
that the appellant/plaintiff did not engage sufficient members for unloading and transporting the goods to the godown shed from the wagons, which
were made idle beyond the free time. Hence, the above second appeal.
Mrs. Uma Ramanathan, learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, inviting my attention to Exs.B3, B5 and B7, referred to above, seriously
contends that, in a matter of claiming damages or deducting any amount towards damages from the bill amount payable to the appellant/plaintiff,
the respondent/defendant-Corporation, much less the railway authorities, ought to have to initially discharged their burden that the appellant/plaintiff
was put on notice as to the time of arrival of the wagon; but the appellant/ plaintiff failed to unload, load and transport the same to the depot within
the free time.
Per contra, Mr. K. Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant - Corporation, contends that the moment they issued letter
dated 16.2.1983, marked as Ex.B3, informing that the wagons carrying food grains are expected at Katpadi railway station at any time from then
onwards, the appellant/plaintiff is under a contractual obligation to make arrangements to unload the wagons within the free time alone, and
therefore, any delay caused by the appellant/plaintiff in unloading and loading the food grains from the wagons would entitle the
respondent/defendant - Corporation to deduct the demurrage and wharfage charges from the bill amount payable to the appellant/plaintiff.
I am unable to appreciate the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant - Corporation.
It is not in dispute that the respondent/defendant - Corporation by their letter dated 16.2.1983, which is marked as Ex.B3, requested the
appellant/plaintiff to make necessary arrangements to unload the wagons within the free time allowed and to transport the goods to Sevur Godown
Complex by truck and unload them at the depot. Ex.B3 reads as follows:
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
FOOD STORAGE DEPOT
SEVURb2
By Regd. Post Ack/Due
Lr.No.FSD/SUR/Stg & Movt/83
dated: 16.2.1983
To:
M/s. Annai Velanganni Traders
FCI/Sevur H&T Contractors
No.10, Geils Street
Madras.1
G/Men,
Subject : FSD/Sevur/H&T Contract - receipt by
rail - handling and transportation -
arrangements requested.
Reference: Our telegram dated 9.2.1983
Further to our telegram dated 9.2.83, this is to inform you that the D.M.P.O. HOM-Madras has started booking of wagons to Katpadi on piece-
meal basis, and the first consignment of 10 wagons containing 2700 bags wheat meant for our depot has been despatched on 14/15-2-1983 and
the relevant R.Rs have also been received on to-day. The above wagons are expected at Katpadi R.S. at any time from now onwards and there
shall be regular receipt. In view of this, you are requested to make necessary arrangements to unload the wagons within the free time allowed,
transport the stocks to Sevur Depot by truck, unload the same at Depot, and stack them inside the godowns upto 18 High. Failure on your part to
unload the wagons within the railway free time and consequential losses to FCI will be on your account which you may kindly note.
Sufficient gang are to be supplied at all operational points. Necessary stitchers/sweepers are to be provided at all transactional points at your cost.
Spare gunnies and jute twine will be supplied by the FCI as per indent from the concerned incharge officials.
Tarpaulins/gunnypaulins must be used at loading and unloading points to prevent mixing up of wheat with other foreign matters.
Kindly furnish the names of your authorised representatives together with their specimen signature and local address.
You are also requested to watch for the placement of wagons at Katpadi Goods Shed and take immediate action to avoid any loss.
Yours faithfully,
sd/-
(R.ANANTHARAJ)
ASSISTANT MANAGER (DEPOT)
A careful reading of the above letter dated 16.2.1983, marked as Ex.B3, does not disclose any specific time as to the arrival of the wagons at
Katpadi Station, but it only requires the appellant/plaintiff to watch for the placement of the wagons at Katpadi Goods Shed and to take immediate
action to avoid any loss. The lack of mentioning of time of arrival of wagons at Katpadi station is further evidenced from the document dated
26.3.1983 of the respondent - Corporation addressed to the appellant/ plaintiff, marked as Ex.B7, which reads as follows:
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA
B.S.G.COMPLEX, SEVUR - 632 106.
Lr.No.FSD/SVUR/820/83, dated 23.3.1983
To:
M/s. Annai Velanganni Traders
FCI Sevur H&T Contractors
No.10, Geils Street
Madras - 1.
Gentleman,
Sub: Wagon despatches Ex. HOM to KPD
H&T Contract work - unloading
and movement depot - reg.
This is to inform that 21 cg.wagons with imported food grain have been despatched to Katpadi Ex. HOM on 19.3.1983 and 20.3.1983. The
relevant R/Rs are available for your collection and to arrange unloading of wagons and movement of stocks on their placement at Katpadi Goods
Shed.
You are requested to arrange necessary trucks, labour force, tarpaulins, stitchers and sweepers at Goods Shed. Failure on your part to unload the
wagons within the railway free time allowed, and movement of stocks within the free delivery period Ex. Goods Shed and consequential losses, if
any, will be at your cost and liable for recovery from you, which you may please note.
The above wagons are expected at Katpadi at any time from now onwards and therefore kindly ensure adequate arrangements to fulfill contract
service operations.
Yours faithfully,
sd/-
Assistant Manager (Depot)
Food Corporation of India, Sevur.
In the said Ex.B7, the respondent/defendant-Corporation had stated that the wagons are expected at Katpadi at any time from now onwards
and therefore, kindly ensure adequate arrangements to fulfill contract obligations.
A reading of both the documents Ex.B3 and B7 together, makes it is clear that the appellant/plaintiff had not been duly informed about the
specific time of arrival of the wagons at Katpadi Station, which would only enable the appellant/plaintiff to unload and transport the goods from the
Goods Shed to the depot within 5 hours. But, without giving such advance notice relating to the arrival of the wagons and relevant railway receipts,
the respondent/ defendant - Corporation had collected a sum of Rs.9483.80 towards demurrage and wharfage charges, alleging that the
appellant/plaintiff failed to unload and transport the goods within the free time, contending that the appellant/ plaintiff were advised by the letter
dated 16.2.1983, marked as Ex.B3, to ensure prompt clearance.
I am of considered that, as the plaintiff/ appellant seeks a declaration to declare that the respondent/defendant - Corporation is not entitled to
withhold a sum of Rs.9483.80 and refuse to pay a sum of Rs.9483.80 from the bill amount payable to the plaintiff/ appellant towards demurrage
and wharfage charges, on the ground that the respondent/defendant - Corporation has not informed the appellant/plaintiff about the actual time of
arrival of the wagons to enable them to perform their part of the obligation, the burden stands shifted on the respondent/defendant - Corporation,
who had withheld the amount towards the demurrage and wharfage charges and refused to pay the same from the bill amount payable to the
plaintiff/appellant to substantiate their case that they are entitled to do so under the terms of the contract and also to prove that they informed the
appellant/plaintiff about the actual time of arrival of the wagons at the Katpadi Station, but still the appellant/plaintiff failed to discharge their part of
obligation.
A combined reading of Exs.B3 and B7, referred to above, shows that the plaintiff/appellant had not been informed about the arrival time of the
wagons at Katpadi station at all. On the other hand, in both the Exs.B3 and B7, the respondent/defendant - Corporation had repeatedly stated that
the wagons are expected to reach Katpadi Station at any time. Neither the tender notification nor any of the correspondence thereunder provides
any safeguard to protect the interest of the appellant/plaintiff - Contractor, if the wagons did not reach within the ""free time"". Therefore, by merely
putting the appellant/plaintiff - contractor informed that the wagons are expected to reach Katpadi Station at any time might itself not be sufficient
for the respondent/defendant - Corporation to deduct any amount from the bill amounts payable to the appellant/plaintiff towards demurrage and
wharfage charges alleging that the appellant/plaintiff - contractor failed to load and unload the food grains within the free time. Such plea of the
respondent/defendant - Corporation is not only vague but also liable to be struck down on the ground of discrimination and unjustified enrichment
and for want of protection to the appellant/plaintiff - Contractor for not enabling them to utilise their fleet and labour.
That apart, it is well settled in law that in the matter of civil liabilities, particularly while claiming demurrage and wharfage charges, the person
who claims such demurrage and wharfage charges is under an obligation to discharge his burden of proving the essential ingredients that he is
entitled for such demurrage and wharfage charges under the terms of the contract, based on his performance of obligation, failing which, such
demand is illegal and contrary to law. Hence, I am obliged to interfere with the decree and judgment in A.S.No.398 of 1987, dated 14.1.1988
and allow the second appeal and decree the suit for a sum of Rs.9483.80 towards demurrages and wharfage charges.
In the result, this second appeal is allowed. No costs.