The plaintiff's failure to disprove the receipts provided by the defendant led to the dismissal of the suit.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer : Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 read with Order 41 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree, dated 15.12.2014 passed in O.S.No.51 of 2010 on the file the Court of the learned III Additional District-cum-Sessions Judge, Salem.

A. The Appeal Suit :

This Appeal Suit is filed against the judgment and decree, dated 15.12.2014 in O.S.No.51 of 2010, in and by which, the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs.21,98,825/-, being the transport charges for transporting the minerals (Tundhish Mass, E.B.T Mass, Graded Olivine Sand) of the defendant from Salem to Bhilai (Chandigarh) and Belphar (Orissa), was dismissed by the Trial Court.

B. The Plaint :

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a Logistics Transport Company, involved in arranging for transport of various kinds of goods. Upon the order of the customers, the plaintiff, by their own vehicles and also by vehicles arranged by them, transport materials on charges. While so, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a letter of understanding, dated 24.04.2008 for providing Trucks for transport of Tundhish Mass, E.B.T Mass, Graded Olivine Sand) of the defendant from Salem to Bhilai (Chandigarh) and Belphar (Orissa). The defendant agreed to pay the prevailing market rate for the transport costs. Based on the letter of understanding, between 13.04.2008 to 08.08.2008, the plaintiff Company had transported 91 Truck loads of Tundhish Mass, E.B.T Mass, Graded Olivine Sand) of the defendant from Salem to Bhilai (Chandigarh) and Belphar (Orissa).

3. After the goods having been received by consignees and the consignees having made necessary endorsements, when the bill was sent to the plaintiff for transport charges, remained outstanding. On 10.08.2008, the defendant also admitted the statement of accounts that a sum of Rs.21,98,825/- was balance due. Even the payments made were irregular and were after the bouncing of cheques and filing of complaints in respect thereof. While so, in order to avoid further payment, the defendant lodged a complaint before the Central Crime Branch Police and the plaintiff’s representative had to appear before them on 27.01.2009 and only thereafter, the proceedings were dropped. In this background, a legal notice was issued on 09.02.2009, for which, a reply with false averments was issued on 24.02.2009 and hence the suit is filed for recovery of the said sum of Rs.21,98,825/- with interest at the rate as the Court deems fit from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realisation of the entire amount.

C. The Written Statement :

4. The defendant denied that it executed a letter of understanding to the plaintiff Company on 24.04.2008. The transactions are admitted. The defendant had paid a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- and after receiving the same, due voucher receipt has been issued on 19.06.2008. Similarly, for payment of Rs.70,000/- on 30.07.2008, a receipt has been given to the defendant. The defendant had also paid a sum of Rs.91,100/- on 04.07.2008 with due receipt. On 30.10.2008, the defendant had paid through four Demand Drafts. On 07.11.2008, a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- was paid as cash and receipt has been issued. On 26.11.2008, a sum of Rs.2,47,000/- has been paid with due receipt thereof. Finally, on 10.12.2008, a balance sum of Rs.15,37,452/- has been paid as cash and the plaintiff has duly acknowledged. All these receipts are duly signed by one G.Sampath, who is the Branch Head of the plaintiff. When the defendant produced all those documents before the plaintiff, it is only the plaintiff who lodged the Police complaint before the Central Crime Branch, Salem. Upon finding the truth, the Police have dropped further action and thereafter, the present suit has been filed.

D. The Issues :

5. On the strength of the above pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues:-

(i) Whether the defendant had executed and delivered to the plaintiff the letter, dated 24.04.2008?

(ii) Whether the defe