STATE OF MEGHALAYA Vs. JYOTSNA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants' appeal against the judgment and decree dt. 30-7-87 passed by the Assistant District Judge No.2, Cachar, Silchar, whereby the plaintiff respondent's suit for recovery of Rupees 21,433.50 paise was decreed against the defendants-appellants.

(2.) The plaintiff had filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 21,433.50 p. from the defendants, the State of Maghalaya and its officers, on the allegations that the plaintiff was an approved dealer in " non-levy" cement and other building materials and had been carrying on business at Shillongpatty, Silchar. The plaintiff through her husband had on 30-6-85 purchased 500 bags of non-levy cement from the defendant No.9 at Gauhati on cash payment of Rs.43,500.00 which included Rs. 1500.00 as lorry freight advance for despatch through the defendant No.8. The plaintiff's husband after- tile transaction had left Gauhati on getting assurance from the defendant, Nos. 8 and 9 that said 500 bags of cement would be delivered at the plaintiff's premises by truck to be arranged by the carrier defendant No.8. After waiting for some time on 6-7-85 information was received that the defendants 6 and 7 had illegally and arbitrarily detained the two trucks carrying the plaintiff's 500 bags of non-levy cement from Gauhati to Silchar via Meghalaya State at Umkiang Police and Supply Check gate. The plaintiff stated that after some personal effort by the plaintiff's husband, on 11-7-85 Truck bearing registration No MLK 499 arrived at Silchar with 200 bags of cement and at the time of taking delivery, it was found that 55 bags of cement had been totally clotted and had become stone. The other truck bearing registration No. NLN 3635 reached Silchar on 12-7-85 and delivered 200 bags of cement at the plaintiff's business premises, out of which four bags had become totally clotted and had become stone. The plaintiff stated that the defendants were liable for the damage and loss caused to the plaintiff's goods.

(3.) The defendants Nos. 1 to 7 filed a joint written statement and pleaded that the court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. The allegations in the plaint were denied. The defendants' further plea was that the State of Meghalaya the defendant No.1 was not liable for damages. The defendants 8 and 9 also denied liability for damages.