PUNJAB STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED Vs. SHRI HARGOBIND RICE AND GENERAL MILLS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for recovery of Rs.37,252.52 Ps, was decreed with no order as to costs by Sub Judge Ist Class, Faridkot, on 12.10.1988, which judgment and decree was upheld by the Additional District Judge, Faridkot on 16.2.1990 while dismissing the appeal filed by the defendants. They are now before this Court by way of a second appeal.

(2.) According to the plaintiff-firm, it was running the business of rice shelling at Faridkot. The defendants-Markfed purchased paddy from the various markets in the year 1981-82 and supplied the same to the shellers for shelling @ Rs.4/- per quintal. 67% yield of PR 106 and 69% yield of IR 8 was to be supplied to the defendants after shelling. At the time of supply of the paddy it was settled that the defendants would give benefit of 2% driage to the shellers. The defendants supplied 5692 quintals 38 kgs of IR 8 paddy and 1553 quintals 6 kgs of PR 106 paddy to the plaintiff for shelling. In the meantime, a dispute arose amongst the shellers of the area on the one hand and the defendants, on the other, regarding percentage of driage, on account of the fact that the paddy supplied was found mixed with husk, sand and dust. When the matter was brought to the notice of the District Manager, Markfed, he promised to compensate the shellers including the plaintiff. The question of benefit of additional driage was under consideration but the plaintiff was pressurised to supply rice. However, it was promised that whatever benefit would be given to other shellers would also be given to the plaintiff. The plaintiff supplied rice to the defendants. The other shellers, namely, Dhillon Rice and Mills, M/s Avtar Singh and Sons and M/s Friends Rice Mills did not supply rice prior to settlement of additional driage. The defendants examined the matter and decided to give benefit of 3% more driage in addition to the driage already given. As such 5% driage was allowed on the paddy issued to the shellers of the area but this benefit was not given to the plaintiff-firm. The Senior District Manager of the Markfed had also recommended that the plaintiff- firm be given benefit of 5% driage on the pattern of other shellers. Reminder was also issued to the Head Office but the defendants did not compensate the plaintiff. It was pleaded that the total amount recoverable from the defendants was Rs.37,252.52 Ps which included Rs.30,137.26 Ps on account of benefit of 3% additional driage, Rs.2,000/- on account of labour charges for unloading of paddy paid by the plaintiff-firm although required to be paid by the defendants and Rs.5117.26 Ps deducted by the defendants as local charges without any reason from the plaintiff-firm.

(3.) While opposing the suit, the defendants pleaded that the suit was time barred. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff-firm supplied rice to the defendants as per the contract. It was denied that there was any promise to give benefit of additional driage to the plaintiff-firm as it was not entitled to such a benefit under any law. As per the policy and contract the local charges were to be borne by the shellers, as such the deduction was proper. The plaintiff submitted a bill for labour charges but the same was not traceable and in case its copy was submitted by the plaintiff-firm, it could be considered on merits. It was also pleaded that release of security showed that no amount was due from the defendants. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence brought on the record, learned trial Court held that there was no justification for withholding the benefit of 3% additional driage from the plaintiff-firm as such a benefit was given to other shellers. The equity required the defendants not to withhold its benefit from the plaintiff-firm. The plaintiff-firm was also held entitled to Rs.2,000/- on account of labour charges and Rs.5117-26 Ps on account of local charges. As mentioned above, the findings arrived at by the learned trial Court were upheld by the lower appellate Court as it dismissed the first appeal filed by the defendants. The present appeal was admitted on 16.7.1990 and notice regarding stay was issued. Ad-interim execution of the decree was suspended in view of the statement made by learned counsel for the appellants at the bar that his clients had already furnished a bank guarantee before the first appellate Court and they undertook to renew the same. On 10.8.1990 after the appearance of the plaintiff-respondent, this Court directed that the decretal amount be deposited in a fixed deposit with the State Bank of India initially for a period of three years and if by then the appeal was not disposed of, the said deposit be renewed for another term of three years.