In a contract for transportation of goods, the plaintiff must provide sufficient evidence to establish that the shortages or damages were caused by the negligence or breach of contract by the defendants.

1. The above suit is filed by the plaintiff to recover a sum of Rs. 10,74,100.22 together with interest at 19% per annum on the said sum, from the date of plaint till date of realisation and for costs.

2. The plaintiff is a statutory incorporated Corporation incorporated under the Food Corporation Act 1964 for the purpose of Trading in foodgrains, food stuffs, fertilisers and other essential commodities. In the course of its activities, the plaintiff precures foodgrains and other essential commodities from various places in the country and outside the country and effect movement of the same to places where they are required. The Senior Regional Manager of the plaintiff invited tenders on 17.11.1981 in No. S & C/13/1/4/81- Cont., for the appointment of transport/handling contractors for transportation/handling of sugar stocks from the places of storage referred to therein to Salt Cotaurs and load them into wagons for different destinations as per the movement programmes given by the District Manager, Madras District Office, Egmore and by the Senior Regional Manager of the Corporation or their nominees. It is the case of the plaintiff that pursuant to the said notice of the said invitation of tenders, the first defendant submitted their quotations and tender on 18.11.1981. On 1.12.1981 the Senior Regional Manager of the plaintiff communicated his acceptance of the rates at which the contract has to be performed and services rendered for transportation of sugar stocks from Central Warehousing Corporation godowns at Chromepet and Tollgate respectively to Salt Cotaurs and loading into wagons. On receipt of the said acceptance, the first defendant furnished a Demand Draft for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- in respect of Chromepet work as security. Similarly the first defendant furnished another sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards security in respect of Tollgate work. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the first defendent commenced operation on 10.12.1981 and has been carrying on the said operation till 2.1.1982 and so far as the despatch of imported sugar from Salt Cotaurs to (a) Guna in the State of Madhya Pradesh, (b) Pandhurna, in the State of Madhya Pradesh, (c) Betul, in the State of Madhya Pradesh, (d) New Cooch Behar in the State of Assam and (e) New Bongaigon in the State of Assam. Under the terms of the contract as well as the procedure adopted in practice in executing works, the first defendant was exclusively executing the work on his own responsibility, risk and obligation. The plaintiff further contends that when the wagons reached destinations and goods were taken delivery, it was found at the time of taking delivery that there were various kinds of shortages, namely, the shortages were partial in the sense that the bags were found to contain sugar less than the normal weight, and in other cases the shortage was found to be of full bags in the sense that there were shortage in the actual number of bags. On receipt of information and complaints from the destination ends, it was found that the contractor did not obtain clear Railway Receipts as envisaged and obliged under the terms of the contract but has secured qualified Railway Receipts with certain super imposed remarks and conditions. In some other cases the first defendant obtained equations “said to contain” Rail way Receipt. After ascertaining the particulars and details, the plaintiff found the loss caused to them initially at Rs. 3,83,870/-. The District Office of the plaintiff sent a notice on 3.5.1982 to the first defendant to reimburse the said loss. The first defendant sent a reply on 12.5.1982 and on 24.5.1982. The plaintiff after verification ultimately arrived at the total loss and damages on account of shortages calculating the double of the prevailing market rate as follows:—

SI. No. Destination of places Shortage in weight Rate Rs. Value Rs. P.

1. Guna 2,575.500 MTs. 11,800/- per MT 30,390.90

2. Pandurana 3,964.000 MTs. ,, 46,775.20

3. Betul 26,560.80