The main legal point established in the judgment is that the absence of privity of contract rendered the suit filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff as not maintainable.

M. VENUGOPAL, J.

The Appellant/Plaintiff has preferred this appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 09.12.2002 in O.S.No.1100 of 1996 passed by the learned VII Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2. The Appellant/Plaintiff in the main suit had prayed for passing of a Judgment against the Respondents/Defendants in directing them to pay the Appellant/Plaintiff a sum of Rs.7,70,957.06/-along with interest at 24% p.a. on the principal sum of Rs.4,46,957.06/-from the date of plaint till the date of realisation in full with costs.

3. On the basis of the pleadings, the Trial Court framed in all six issues. On the side of the Appellant/Plaintiff, witness P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A25 were marked. On the side of the Respondents/Defendants, D.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.B1 to B3 were marked.

4. Onan appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the trial Court while passing the Judgment had among other things opined that 'the Appellant/Plaintiff was not entitled to claim the transportation charges of Rs.4,46,957.06/- along with interest Rs.3,24,000/- and further that as per Ex.B1 Agreement dated 24.10.1990, the contract was only between the Appellant/Transport Company Partnership Firm and the Second Respondent/Second Defendant, the Executive Engineer and inasmuch as there was no agreement entered into between the Appellant/Plaintiff and that of the Second Respondent/Second Defendant, the Executive Engineer, the suit filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff as Proprietary Concern, was not maintainable and resultantly dismissed the suit with costs.

5. The points that arise for consideration in this appeal are:-

(i) Whether the Appellant/Plaintiff (a Proprietary Concern) is entitled to claim a sum of Rs.7,70,957.06/- with interest at 24 % p.a. on the principal of Rs.4,46,957.06 from the date of plaint till the date of realisation etc., from the Respondents/Defendants?

(ii) Whether there was any privity of contract between the Appellant/Plaintiff and the Second Respondent/Second Defendant?

6. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff, the Trial Court had not taken note of the fact that at the time of transporting the Bitumen from Chennai to Chitradurga in Karnataka State, the Appellant/Plaintiff was a Partnership Firm, consisting of two partners and in fact as per Ex.A4, (series) Xerox copy of Bills dated 19.09.1992, etc., and Ex.A5 Xerox copy of Bills (Series) dated 21.08.1992, etc., the Goods viz., Bitumen were transported from Chennai to Chitradurga on various dates and therefore, the Appellant/Plaintiff had claimed a sum of Rs.4,46,957.06/- as Transportation charges and in this regard, the Appellant/Plaintiff made a demand on the Respondents/Defendants as per Ex.A6 Letter dated 26.05.1993, Ex.A9 Letter dated 04.10.1993, Ex.A10 Letter dated 19.11.1993 and Ex.A13 Letter dated 02.01.1995 requiring them to pay the amount and moreover, the Appellant/Plaintiff sent a Lawyer's Notice Ex.A15 dated 18.12.1993 by calling upon the Respondents/Defendants to pay the amounts due to it and the Second Respondent/Second Defendant addressed a reply Ex.A16 dated 27.01.1994.

7. The further contention on the side of the Appellant/Plaintiff is that the trial Court came to the wrong conclusion that Exs.A4 and A5 (series) were xerox copies of the Bills and the Store Keeper who received and acknowledged the goods was not authorised to receive the same and therefore, the goods were not delivered and such a finding was a perverse one in the eye of Law.

8. Continuing further, the Learned counsel for the Appellant/Plaintiff submits that as against the Appellant/Plaintiff no case was filed and indeed, the Appellant/Plaintiff could not be penalised by depriving the transportation charges due to it in regard to the Goods Delivered because of the reasons that some officials of the Respondents/Defendants committed malpractices in the collection of Bitumen and there was some investigation, etc.,

9. A