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 or trade practice to withhold delivery.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 26.10.2010 in O.S.No.342 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.2), Salem.)

T S.S. Sundar, J.

1. The plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.342 of 2004 on the file of the Additional District Court, Salem (Fast Track Court No.2, Salem), is the appellant in the above appeal, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dismissing the suit as against defendants 1 to 11 and 14 in the suit.

2. The appellant filed the suit against defendants 1 to 14 for recovery of a sum of Rs.19,61,916/- towards the value of goods under 10 consignments, delivered to defendants 12 and 13, with an interest @ 18% p.a. till the date of plaint.

3. The case of the plaintiff in the plaint is as follows:

3.1. The plaintiff is a manufacturer of rubber footwear popularly known as Hawai with brand name “Paragon”. The 1st defendant is a transport company having head office at Calicut and branches throughout the country. Defendants 2 to 7 are the Directors of the 1st defendant. 8th defendant is the Manager at Calicut Branch. 9th defendant is the Manager at Salem Branch. 10th defendant is the Manager at Tirunelveli Branch. 11th defendant is the Manager at Coimbatore Branch. Defendants 12 and 13 are the agents of products of plaintiff at Tirunelveli and Marthandam. Defendants 12 and 13 are the proprietary concerns owned by an individual by name Varusai Mohideen. 14th defendant is the General Manager of 1st defendant, having office at Chennai.

3.2. The plaintiff used to entrust consignments to the 1st defendant''s Branch office at Salem, namely, the 9th defendant, for the purpose of transportation for about 7 years. For the period from 30.06.2003 to 07.10.2003, certain goods were entrusted with the 1st defendant''s Branch office at Salem under 10 different invoices to be delivered to defendants 12 and 13. Simultaneously, the sale documents along with the consignee copy of “Goods Consignments Notes” were sent to the plaintiff''s Bankers to Tirunelveli for negotiation. Since the plaintiff did not receive payments in respect of 10 invoices, they contacted the Bank and informed that the parties, namely defendants 12 and 13, did not turn up to clear the documents. The Bankers returned the sale documents and “Goods Consignments Notes” to the plaintiff on 04.11.2003 and 18.12.2003. Thereafter, the plaintiff contacted the 10th defendant and demanded return of goods. Inspite of personal demand and demand over phone, the 10th defendant did not send any reply nor returned the consignments. Therefore, the plaintiff sent a notice, dated 12.04.2004, to the 14th defendant with a copy of such notice marked to defendants 1, 9, 10 and 11.

3.3. On enquiry, the plaintiff came to know that the goods transported through the 9th defendant reached the destination. Without receiving the sale documents and the consignee copy of “Goods Consignments Notes”, the goods were delivered to the consignees by the 10th defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff issued a notice to the defendants 1 to 8, 10 and 11 through their Advocate on 07.06.2004. The defendants sent a reply notice dated 02.07.2004, through their Advocate, containing false allegations. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued a rejoinder, dated 19.10.2004, addressed to the Advocate of the defendants. The value of the goods covered by 10 invoices is Rs.16,41,771/- and therefore, the defendants were called upon to clear the said account with 18% interest, from the date of notice.

3.4. The defendants 12 and 13, with the knowledge and consent of other defendants, have conspired together and effected illegal delivery and defendants 12 and 13 have misappropriated the value of consignments. A police complaint was also lodged with the concerned police and the same is pending.

3.5. The plaintiff entrusted the consignments to 9th defendant