NATIONAL ALUMINIUN CO LTD Vs. N RAJENDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE unsuccessful defendants in O. S. No. 35 of 1996 on the file of IV Additional District Judge's Court, visakhapatnam filed the appeal against the judgment and preliminary decree dated 5-9-2001.

(2.) THE factual background is that the plaintiff filed the suit claiming that the defendants entered into an understanding with the plaintiff, a transport contractor, for transporting various oils. As per the understanding, the plaintiff should provide the tankers for transportation of oils from visakhapatnam to Damanjodi and has to be paid Rs. 0. 39 paise per kilolitre per kilometre. The plaintiff deposited Rs. 10,000/- as security deposit on 26-5-1988 and the initial contract for one year was extended from time to time. The plaintiff was accordingly supplying oil tankers without any delay or default and was submitting his bills to the defendants which were payable within 30 days from the date of submission. However, the defendants abnormally delayed in paying the bills resulting in huge loss to the plaintiff and the demand by the plaintiff to enhance the transport rate due to increase in fuel prices and the cost of maintenance of the vehicles was in vain. The defendants were alleging that there was a little shortage of the oils at the delivery point and were withholding the payments in spite of the admitted understanding about the handling loss. The last payment was made by the defendants through a cheque dated 3-8-1990 and the defendants did not pay the balance in spite of repeated demands. The shortage allowance of 0. 7 per cent agreed between the parties was also ignored by the defendants and as per the plaintiffs calculations, Rs. 1,83,351/- were due from the defendants, apart from the security deposit of Rs. 10,000/ -. The defendants were not rendering proper and correct accounts compelling the plaintiff to file the suit for rendition of accounts and to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1,93,351/-with further interest at 24 per cent per annum and costs.

(3.) THE defendants resisted the suit contending that the plaintiff entered into the contract through his letter dated 25-5-1988 and when the plaintiff received the amounts under various bills without any protest, he is estopped from claiming any further amounts and in the presence of the agent of the plaintiff, the shortages found in each transportation were arrived at based on which the bills were ascertained and the amounts were paid without any delay. The plaintiff received the amounts under all bills including the final bill dated 30-7-1990 without protest and the cheque for Rs. 55,095/-was accepted and encashed by the plaintiff. A further amount of Rs. 1,678/-was also paid on 3-9-1990 to offset the loss caused to the plaintiff by the accident committed by the plaintiffs driver though the defendants are not responsible for making any such payment. The short deliveries by the plaintiff were duly taken into account and the claim for Rs. 1,83,351/- as due from the defendants is false. The plaintiff was uncertain of the amount claimed by him and when the payments made by the defendants were in full and final settlement of all the claims, the question of any rendition of accounts does not arise. The contract specifically recited that the Courts in Koraput in Orissa State have alone jurisdiction and hence, the trial Court has no jurisdiction. When the accounts were completely and finally settled, a suit for rendition of accounts does not lie and hence, the defendants sought for dismissal of the suit with costs.