MD NAZEER AHMED Vs. ECONOMIC TRANSPORT ORGANISATION VIJAYAWADA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Defendants 1 and 2 in O.S. No.131 of 1979 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge (Senior Civil Judge), Vijayawada are in appeal before this Court. By impugned judgment the Trial Court decreed the suit of the sole respondent-plaintiff directing the appellants herein to pay a sum of Rs.24,768,98 ps with subsequent interest on Rs.23,168.75 ps at 12% per annum from 25-4-1979 and costs of Rs.3,170.50 ps. The parties are referred to herein as per their status in the suit.

(2.) The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of the suit amount from the Defendants 1 to 3. The events, which lead to filing of the suit, as narrated in the plaint are as follows. The plaintiff is a firm engaged in the business of goods by road, having its regional office at Vijayawada. The plaintiff appointed the first defendant as an Agent at Nidadavolu and entered into contract of A Full Bench of five learned Judges of this Court in Vallabhaneni Lakshmana Swamy v. Vallum Basavaiab (2004 (5) ALD 807 (LB)), considered the question as to whether A.P, Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 30 of 1989 is retrospective or prospective in operation. Be it noted that by the said amendment, the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, inter alia, the District Courts/Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, was raised from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- and by a further amendment, the pecuniary limits to entertain appeal was raised to Rs.3,00,000/- with effect from 1-11-2000. In view of this, the question was raised before the Full Bench whether the Appeal Suits/CCCAs filed before this Court during the interregnum are to be sent back to lower Courts. The Full Bench of this Court unanimously held that the A.P. Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 30 of 1989 is applicable prospectively from 1-12-1989, that the suits in which decrees were passed prior to 1- 12-1989 will be dealt with in accordance with pre-amended procedure and that the appeals already admitted by this Court shall be deemed to have been transferred to this Court for disposal in accordance with law. By reason of this judgment, though the value of this appeal is only Rs.53,784.98 ps, the matter was heard by this Court as per the dicta of the Full Bench. Agency dated 7-6-1976. The second defendant, who is the father of first defendant, executed a guarantee bond dated 15-9-1977 to a tune of Rs.50,000/- and the third defendant undertook to indemnify any loss or damage that may be occasioned to plaintiff. The first defendant is entitled to commission whenever he undertakes booking, delivering and transportation of the consignments on behalf of the plaintiff.

(3.) During the period from 7-6-1976 to 16-9-1978, the first defendant was paid his commission and he gave a letter dated 14-10-1978 agreeing to make good any loss that may be caused to the plaintiff subject to final verification of the accounts and final discharge of the first defendant as the agent. Subsequently it came to light that the plaintiff mentioned certain Bank Demand Drafts amounting to Rs.23,168.75 ps in the account of first defendant and on verification it was found that the first defendant did not purchase any such drafts and he only gave those drafts to show that there were no dues. The first defendant misappropriated the said amount and he is liable to pay the amount. The Defendants 2 and 3 being the guarantors are also equally liable to pay the amount. A registered notice dated 29-3-1979 was issued to the defendants without any result. Therefore the suit is filed.