Bhilwara Synthetics Ltd. vs CARRYCO ROAD CARRIERS

THIS appeal is directed against the order of the learned District Forum, Bhilwara dated 3.8.1995 whereby the complaint filed by the appellant M/s. Bhilwara Synthetics Ltd., Bhilwara has been dismissed with a direction that he could seek his remedy against M/s. Khanna Textiles, Dhanbad (consignee) by approaching competent Court.

WE heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the material available on the record. Facts not largely in dispute are that the appellant M/s. Bhilwara Synthetics Ltd. had supplied cloth detailed in Schedule A of the complaint as per orders received from M/s. Khanna Textiles, Dhanbad. These goods were handed over to the respondents M/s. Carryco Road Carriers for delivery to the purchaser (consignee) after production of the documents issued by the Bank. The dispute arose between the parties when the goods were delivered to the consignee M/s. Khanna Textiles, Dhanbad without obtaining the papers of the Bank and such documents were received back by the appellant without payment of consideration. The appellant feeling aggrieved and alleging deficiency in rendering service on the part of the respondents approached the learned District Forum to claim the value of goods amounting to Rs. 4,50,233/- with interest @ 24% p.a. besides claiming compensation as detailed in the complaint.

The respondents contested the complaint by filing a written version. The stand of the respondents has been that the goods were delivered to the consignee M/s. Khanna Textiles, Dhanbad as per instructions given by the appellant to them and that they have not rendered any deficient services to the appellant. It has also been averred that the said consignee had also issued four cheques in respect of value of goods purchased by him from the appellant but since the aforesaid cheques could not be encashed because of paucity of funds in the Bank account of the consignee, the appellant is no entitled to claim any amount as claimed by him in the complaint from them. It has also been urged that not only the appellant had proceeded under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and proceedings therein are pending before the Court of Magistrate and Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Bhilwara but that the appellant had also filed four FIRs on 13.3.1995 in Police Station, Pratap Nagar through its Power of Attorney K.P. Jain against the consignee but that the appellant had already received the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the basis of two cheques of Rs. 50,000/- each issued by the consignee besides having received the DDs of Rs. 16,590/-, Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 491/- from the consignee. It is, therefore, contended that if the appellant has any grievance, it is against the consignee M/s. Khanna Textiles, Dhanbad and not against the respondents. It has, therefore, been argued that the appellant''s appeal be dismissed with costs.

WE have given due thought and consideration to the controversy raised between the parties. The learned District Forum has dealt with in detail the circumstances and the evidence tendered on behalf of both the parties before it and has arrived at the conclusion that there has been no deficiency on the part of the respondents in handing over the goods to the consignee. WE are in agreement that the findings arrived at by the learned District Forum which is evident from the communication dated 25.10.1994 sent by M/s. Khanna Textiles, Dhanbad to the appellant M/s. Bhilwara Synthetics Ltd., Bhilwara wherein it has been specifically mentioned that the consignee had sent DDs as stated above to the appellant and that there has been business dealings between them in the past also. To us, it appears that the goods have been delivered to the consignee as per instructions of the appellant and that is why the appellant has received two cheques of Rs. 50,000/- each from the consignee besides receiving the amounts of Rs. 16,590/-, Rs. 20,000- and Rs. 491/- respectively. Had there been no understanding between the parties i.e., consignee and the consignor that the goods transported through the respondents could be delivered on instructions, the respondents could not have delivered the goods to the consignee without obtaining the papers of the Bank. Filing of four FIRs by the appellant against the consignee for non-encashment of the four cheques sent by the consignee to the appellant also supports the finding that the goods must have been delivered to the consignee after the value of goods must have been sent through cheques by the consignee to the consignor. For non-encashment of the aforesaid four cheques by the appellant, the respondents cannot be held responsible since they have fulfilled their part of the agreement as soon as they handed over the goods to the consignee as per instructions received from the appellant. In view of above, we do not find any ground whatsoever to interfere in the impugned order passed by the learned District Forum. Consequently, the appeal fails with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.