In a commercial transport contract, a party cannot recover third-party charges like demurrage unless explicitly provided for in the agreement. Additionally, excessive delays in unloading caused by an employer's infrastructural failures entitle the contractor to compensation for 'extraordinary' detention based on a careful assessment of evidence.

JUDGMENT & ORDER

(Biswajit Palit, J)

Since all the three commercial appeals have arisen out of a common judgment and decree and the subject matter of these appeals is identical, so these three commercial appeals are taken up together for disposal by this common judgment and order.

2. Heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Kundan Pandey appearing on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff i.e. the contractor in RFA No.3 of 2024 and for the respondent in RFA No.8 of 2024 and RFA No.9 of 2024. Also heard Learned Counsel, Mr. Ratan Datta appearing on behalf of the respondents-FCI in RFA No.3 of 2024 and for the appellants in RFA No.8 of 2024 and RFA No.9 of 2024.

3. Short facts of the case of the appellant/plaintiff i.e. the contractor are as follows:

The original suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff i.e. the contractor before the Learned Trial Court, claiming detention charges along with interest for delay in unloading of food grains beyond the stipulated period due to shortage of storage space, as per the tender agreement.

3.1. The case of the appellant, in short, is that he runs a transport business in the name of M/s Suvajit Paul and the respondents-FCI appointed him as a transport contractor for a period of 2(two) years for transportation of food grains/sugar and other allied materials including loading and unloading works at Food Storage Depots from railway siding/FSD Dharmanagar to FSD Arundhutinagar, Agartala. As per the tender agreement, the appellant started transportation of food grains w.e.f. 01.05.2012 and had been carrying out the work of loading of food grains from Railway Wagon at railway siding, FSD Dharmanagar and transporting the same to FSD, Arundhutinagar, Agartala, Tripura by using trucks/lorries under road movement permits issued by the Depot in-charge, FCI, Dharmanagar, mentioning the date of dispatch with a validity period of 3(three) days, including the date of dispatch and the date of delivery at the destination. The appellant executed the work of loading and unloading of food grains during the period of contract.

3.2. It was the case of the appellant that due to shortage of accommodation in the FCI storage/go-down at Arundhutinagar, Agartala, the delivery of food grains could not be effected within the stipulated period and the respondents-FCI almost in all the occasions had detained the loaded vehicles at the destination point for a period of about 4 to 20 days for which the appellant had to suffer huge financial losses and also had to pay recovery charges. The appellant had claimed a sum of Rs. 800/- per day for detention of every loaded truck at the destination point by writing several letters to the respondent-Area Manager but they did not pay any heed to those letters.

3.3. It was further the case of the appellant-contractor that the General Manager, FCI, Regional Office, NEFR, Shillong by a letter dated 12.07.2013 supplying copy to the appellant/plaintiff informed the Director of Food and Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Govt. of Tripura that due to increase in induction of food grains and inadequate storage capacity in the FCI go-down in the State of Tripura, the respondent-Area Manager was not in a position to unload the trucks. The appellant, from time to time, made claims for detention charges of the vehicles to the respondents-FCI by submitting bills, but no action was taken. Hence, the appellant/plaintiff filed the case before the Learned Court below seeking relief(s) as stated above.

4. Defence of the respondents/defendants i.e. FCI:

The respondents-FCI contested the suit by filing written statement stating inter alia that the appellant/plaintiff had