AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
THIS appeal is taken up for admission as the delay has been condoned today itself in Civil Misc. Application No. 215 of 2003.
COMPLAINANT Cadila Healthcare Limited filed Complaint No. 737 of 2000 against opponent No. 1 carrier for recovery of the amount of goods short supplied by the opponent/opponent''s agent to the consignee. The opponent did not appear before the learned Forum and the matter went ex parte. Apart from the fact that there is a dispute with regard to address of the present appellant being original opponent, it clearly appears that the certified copy of the impugned order was received by the said party at the same address which was shown in the complaint proceedings. We, however, do not propose of enter into this part of the dispute canvassed before us since we have heard the learned Advocate for the appellant on the merits of the matter. First submission of learned Advocate for the appellant is that the shortage certificate was issued by M/s. R.K. Roadlines, Varanasi. It is not in dispute that opponent accepted the goods for being consigned to the consignee and M/s. R.K. Roadlines acted as the opponent''s agent carrier. We do not have any material with regard to correctness or otherwise of shortage certificate issued by the opponent''s agent at Varanasi. In our considered opinion as between the complainant and the opponent, opponent is bound to honour the shortage certificate issued by its agent. Hence, merely because shortage certificate was issued by aforesaid Roadlines to whom the goods were entrusted by the opponent, complainant''s legitimate claim cannot be denied by the opponent.
It has been submitted that the learned Forum would not have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as the shortage certificate was issued at Varanasi. This submission also cannot be accepted inasmuch as the contract for transportation of goods was entered into between the parties within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Forum. If that is so, part of cause of action did arise within the territorial jurisdiction of the learned Forum. That apart, one of the offices of the opponent is also located within such territory. In that view of the matter, submission with regard to lack of territorial jurisdiction cannot be accepted.
WE have gone through the impugned order. The learned Forum has awarded interest at the rate of 9% p.a. and has awarded reasonable amount of cost in the sum of Rs. 300/-. Hence, this is not a fit case to be admitted. This appeal is accordingly rejected at the stage of admission. Appeal dismissed. c