SAURASHTRA CERAMIC INDUSTRIES Vs. SADHANA TRANSPORT CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is plaintiffs' Second Appeal arising out of the following brief facts : The plaintiffs-appellants filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 7,194.75 ps. from the defendant-respondent on account of damages and interest because of non-delivery or misdelivery of goods entrusted to the respondent for carriage and delivery. On 16-6-1972 plaintiff No. 1 handed over consignment of goods for the purposes of delivery to the customer at Indore. The defendants are transporters. They took the consignment for delivery to the consignee and issued lorry receipt on the same day. The lorry receipt and bills were forwarded to the Bank of India at Indore with instructions to deliver the receipt and bills to Binod Steel Limited against payment. Binod Steel Limited did not make the payment to the Bank and ultimately the papers were returned back along with lorry receipt to the plaintiff. There was instruction of the plaintiff to the defendants to deliver the goods only on production of lorry receipt, but ignoring this direction the defendant delivered the goods to Binod Steels Ltd., Indore and failed to obtain lorry receipt. Consequent damages and interest were claimed from the defendants.

(2.) The suit was contested by the defendant on the ground that the goods were supplied for carriage on telephonic message from the plaintiff and as per oral instruction of the plaintiff No. 1 the defendant wrote for direct delivery in the consignment note and kept blank the column of consignee and the name of consignee was to be filled up by the plaintiff No. 1 as they liked. In this way the consignment note was sent to the plaintiff. It was further pleaded that the consignment was delivered by the defendant to the party of Indore, viz., Binod Steels as per the written instructions of the plaintiff. Hence, it is not the case of wrong delivery, misdelivery or non-delivery. On other grounds also the suit was contested, but those grounds need not be reproduced in this judgment because only one substantial question of law was formulated in this Appeal.

(3.) . The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. An Appeal was preferred which too was dismissed. It is, therefore, this Second Appeal.