PRANAB KUMAR SAHA Vs. F C I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 10.10.96 (decree drawn up on 26.11.96) passed by the learned Civil Judge, Sr. Division, West Tripura, Agartala in T.S. No. 59/93 whereby the plaintiff's suit was dismissed.

(2.) I have heard Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. S. Ghosh for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned counsel for the respondents.

(3.) In short, the appellant's (hereinafter called "the plaintiff) case is that he being a registered carrying contractor entered into an agreement with the defendant- respondent Food Corporation of India (FCI) (hereinafter called "the defendant") through its Sr. Regional Manager, Shillong on 27.9.92 for carrying foodgrains from Kumarghat Railway Head to FCI Depot at Agartala for two years. Pursuant to work order, the plaintiff started the transportation of foodgrains on 31.5.93. The plaintiff took a load of 130 bags common rice containing 119.41 quintals on 31.5.93 at Kumarghat Railway Head for carrying the same to the FCI Depot at Agartala through a truck bearing No. TRL-2446. The consignment was issued under FCI Road Movement permit. Though the consignment was expected to reach at Agartala on the following day, but it did not. Instead, it came to the notice of the plaintiff that one vehicle met with an accident with consignment of foodgrains near Teliamura a1 Assam-Agartala road. The plaintiff rushed to the spot and identified the said truck, but he did not find any consignment. He came to know that just after the accident, the miscreants looted the consignment. He lodged FIR with Teliamura P.S. For non-delivery of the aforesaid consignment of rice, the FCI deducted Rs. 1,63,956.51 from the plaintiff's subsequent bills having resorted to the terms embodied under clause-XII (a) and clause 27 of the Agreement. Hence he filed the suit seeking declaration of the aforesaid terms of the Agreement to be void and for recovery of the aforesaid amount. The defendant FCI contested the suit having filed a written objection contending, inter alia, that since the plaintiff failed to deliver the consignment of rice he received at Kumarghat Railway Head in terms of Agreement, three times of the issue price/value of the aforesaid non-delivered foodgrains had been rightly recovered from his subsequent bills. The learned trial Court on conclusion dismissed the suit. Hence the present appeal.