IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.A. NAKKIRAN, J.
M/s. Reliable Road Wings Pvt. Ltd., Rep. by its Director Sanjaykumar Gupta, Chennai - Appellant
Versus
M/s.TVS Logistics Services Limited, Rep. by its Directors, Chennai - Respondent
A.S. No. 749 of 2015
Decided On : 13-06-2022
Recovery of Money - Transportation Services - CPC, Order 41 Rule 1 - Section 96 - [PW.1, DW.1, Vehicle Contract Voucher, Consignment Notes, Acknowledgement, Vehicle Utilization Voucher] - The court discussed the requirement for maintaining proper track records, invoices, delivery challans, vouchers, and other documentary proof in transportation business. It emphasized the duty of the Plaintiff to prove transactions with the Defendant by filing material documents such as vehicle contract vouchers, consignment notes, and acknowledgments for the delivery of goods. The court found that the Plaintiff failed to provide the necessary documents and therefore dismissed the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of money for transportation services rendered to Defendant. Defendant resisted, claiming invoices were fictitious and not related to their transactions.
Finding of the Court:
Plaintiff failed to prove transactions with Defendant by filing required documents. Trial Court's judgment was proper and no interference was warranted.
Issues: Dispute over payment for transportation services, validity of invoices, and proof of transactions.
Ratio Decidendi: Plaintiff must provide material documents such as vehicle contract vouchers, consignment notes, and acknowledgments for the delivery of goods to prove transactions with the Defendant.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed. No costs.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: This Appeal Suit has been filed, under Section 96 of CPC, read with Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC, against the judgment and decree, dated 22.01.2015 made in OS.No.7450 of 2012 by the XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.)
1. This appeal suit has been filed, by the Plaintiff, against the judgment and decree, dated 22.01.2015 made in OS.No.7450 of 2012 by the XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.11,37,157.40/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of the plaint till realization.
3. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff is a common carrier for reward engaged by the Defendant for transportation of their materials and products all over India. The Defendant had placed vehicle contract vouchers and the Plaintiff rendered their transportation services from Chennai to various destinations in India. The Defendant had accepted the offer made by the Plaintiff and approached the Plaintiff and appointed them as their carriers for their safe carriage and delivery. The Defendant had entrusted various consignments to the Plaintiff on various dates under various consignment notes. The Plaintiff, acknowledging such entrustment of consignments, had issued various goods consignment notes on various dates to the Defendant. The Plaintiff had delivered all the consignments covered under various goods consignment notes. After effecting delivery, the Plaintiff had raised their bills on the Defendant towards their freight charges. The Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the bill amount within 30 days from the date of the bill and as far as the freight bills are concerned, it was further agreed by the Defendant that if the Defendant do not pay the freight charges within 30 days, they will be liable to pay interest on the bill amount at 18% per annum. The Defendant, in spite of repeated requests and demand letters, did not make the payment for the freight bills. The Defendant has paid only a sum of Rs.3,78,042/- on 01.04.2012 by way of a cheque. The Plaintiff had issued a legal notice to the Defendant, dated 26.09.2012 and the same was returned as “left”. Hence the suit was filed for recovery of money.
4. The suit was resisted by the Defendant, by filing a written statement, contending that the Plaintiff is making claims, without any basis and based on false invoices, which are in no way concerned with the transactions between them. The payments would be made only for the proper services rendered with correct invoices pertaining to Vehicle Contract Voucher, Vehicle Utilization Voucher issued by the Defendant and submitted along with the details of the VUV/CVC and original proof of delivery document. The Plaintiff cannot raise invoices if the above mentioned requirements are not complied with. It is the duty of the Plaintiff to maintain proper track records, invoices, delivery challans, vouchers and other documentary proof pertaining to all the transactions. The Plaintiff did not carry out the services as set out in the plaint. The invoices have not been received by the Defendant, except the nine invoices for a total sum of Rs.3,59,978/-. The Defendant had made an advance payment of Rs.3,44,442/- to the Plaintiff vide cheque, dated 11.09.2009. This advance amount has been set off and there is a difference of Rs.11,589/- in payment and the same is on account of deductions made towards penalty and excess charges claimed by the Plaintiff. The Defendant has not acknowledged the delivery of consignment and not agreed to pay the outstanding amount as claimed by the Plaintiff. There is no due payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff and the entire claim made by the Plaintiff is fictitious. The documents filed by the Plaintiff do not relate to the Defendant. Most of the documents do not carry details of the Vehicle Utilization Voucher or Vehicle Contract Voucher. There are no proper endorsements or acknowledgments on the invoices. Most of the invoices raised are time bar
The duty of the Plaintiff to maintain proper track records, invoices, delivery challans, vouchers, and other documentary proof in transportation business.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the carrier was not liable for the delivery of goods without the consignee copy of 'Goods Consignments Notes' in the absence of an agreement o....
Section 10 of the Carriers Act requires notice of loss but does not apply to non-delivery claims; payment of freight does not negate liability for lost goods.
The defendant had a right of lien over the goods for unpaid freight charges, justifying the withholding of delivery and limiting the plaintiff's recovery to the balance amount after deductions.
The plaintiff's failure to disprove the receipts provided by the defendant led to the dismissal of the suit.
The court upheld the concurrent findings of fact regarding the appellant's failure to prove non-delivery, affirming the respondent's entitlement to payment.
A party's acceptance of contract terms and payments without objection can bar subsequent claims for additional amounts or contesting penalties imposed under the agreement.
A party cannot claim amounts post-agreement if they accepted payments without objection and did not raise disputes during the contract's term.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.