HINDUSTAN METALS Vs. VISHAL GOODS TRANSPORT CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Misc. appeal is directed against the order dated 23rd Aug., 1984 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jodhpur in Civil Appeal Decree No. 25/81.

(2.) The brief facts of the case which are necessary for the decision of this appeal are that; the appellant-plaintiff (for short 'the plaintiff') filed a suit before the Munsiff Magistrate, Jodhpur City, Jodhpur for recovery of Rs. 3,050.00 against the respondent-defendants, inter alia, stating therein that the plaintiff-firm is a registered firm and the respondent defendants Transport-company is also a registered Transport Company firm and undertaking the business of career by transporting goods through their trucks having a branch office at Jodhpur and principal office at Delhi (for short 'the defendants'). It was averred that on 6-6-1973 the plaintiff booked the goods (scrape) weighing about 100 quintal to be delivered to M/s. Modi Steels, Modi Nagar which is situated in the State of U.P. near Gaziyabad. It was further averred that the plaintiff demanded receipt of the goods from M/s. Modi Steels, Modi Nagar by letter No. 247 dated 20/06/1994. In response to this letter M/s. Modi Steels, Modi Nagar intimated that the goods sent by the plaintiff on 6-6-1973 by truck No. RRL 4156 has not been delivered to the consignee M/s. Modi Steels. The plaintiff, by its letter dated 24/06/1974 inquired from the defendant No. 2 with the request that the receipt by which the goods were sent may also be made available to the plaintiff. This letter remained unreplied. The plaintiff again on 28-8-1974 sent a reminder but the defendants did not respond. Thereafter on 11-11-1974 the defendants were served with a notice demanding the amount for the loss occasioned on account of non-delivery of the aforesaid goods. That notice was also not responded by the defendants. Despite the aforesaid communications and notice, the defendants did not pay the amount for the loss occasioned to the plaintiff. Under these circumstances, the plaintiff after calculating the interest at the rate of 12% per annum for 36 months filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 3050.00 (Rs. 2,234/- original amount of the goods and Rs. 806.00 the interest and the expenses on notice) against the defendants.

(3.) On receipt of the notice, the defendants filed the application dated 6-12-1976 by which the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court was challenged and it was contended that the printed condition No. 17 overleaf the document Ex. A/1 provides that the Court in Delhi City alone shall have jurisdiction in respect of all the claims and the matters arising under the consignment or of the goods entrusted for transportation.