IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

F.A. No.52 of 2012

------

M/s. Tata Steel Limited

....

....

….

Appellant

Versus

1. M/s Naveen Transport Company

2. Shri Girdhar Narayan Singh

3. Most. Bharti Kothari

....

....

.... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY

For the Appellant

: Mr. Indrajit Sinha, Advocate

For the Respondents : Mr. Malay Kumar Laik, Sr. Advocate

CAV ON : 22.02.2022

PRONOUNCED ON 05 .05 . 2022

The appellant-defendant has preferred the First Appeal against

judgment and decree passed in Money Suit No.51 of 1998 whereby the suit

has been decreed for a sum of Rs.32,78,664/- pendente lite and future interest

at the rate of 18% per annum.

2.

The plaintiffs’ case is that it is a partnership firm in transportation

business, was engaged by defendant Company for transportation of Hard Coke

from F.C.I., Sindri to Jamshedpur by Work Order No. RMPO/11/93/730956

dated 12.11.1993 for transportation of 6000 metric ton of Hard Coke per

month at the rate of 232 per ton for the period of one year commencing from

01.10.1993 to 30.09.1994.

3.

The terms and conditions of the contract inter alia provided as under:-

i.

Terms of payment- 95% payment to be released by the General

Manager (Finance & Account), Jamshedpur against the bills

submitted on monthly basis and balance 5% to be released after

making adjustment of quantity and verification of Challans etc.

ii.

Each truck loaded with Hard Coke, would be covered with double

tarpaulin and sealed at the transporter’s cost and would be sampled

individually at loading and unloading point by a public analyst.

iii.

Penalty charge at the rate of Rs.4000/- per metric ton to be imposed

in the event of any variation on account of quality and quantity of

Hard Coke.

4.

It is the case of the plaintiffs that the said consignment was

transported within the contracted period but the defendant company deducted

2

a total amount of Rs.25,41,600.00 during the period from August, 1994 to

February, 1995. On representation, a sum of Rs.6,35,400.00 has been

refunded on 19.12.1995 keeping a balance of Rs.19,06,200.00.

5.

The case of the appellant-defendant is that as per the purchase order

dated 12.11.1993, the penal charges were fixed at Rs.4000/- per metric ton.

The break-up of this penalty amount was Rs.3000/- as the cost of coke and

Rs.1000/- as penalty towards difference in quality of the coke received at the

delivery point and in accordance with the report of the analyst. Out of the total

deduction of Rs.25,41,600/- calculated at the rate of Rs.4000/- per metric ton,

Rs.19,06,200/- was price of the coke found deficit in quantity at the delivery

point at the rate of Rs.3000/- per metric ton. The penal charge of

Rs.6,35,400/- regarding the deficiency, which was earlier imposed, has now

been released.

6.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following main issues

were framed:-

v.

Whether there is any breach of contract?

vi.

Whether the defendant is entitled to deduct the amount from the

bills for short supply to the extent of Rs.19,06,200/- and whether

it is refundable to defendant?

vii.

Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the decree sought for?

viii. Is it fact that every truck was sampled individually by public

analyst M/s. S.G.S. India Ltd.?

7.

The learned Trial Court recorded a finding in favour of the plaintiffs

for a money decree of Rs.19,06,200/- with interest at the rate of 18% per

annum from 19.12.1995 till the institution of the suit.

8.

The Trial Court held that in terms and condition of contract (Exhibits

1 & 2) in the event of any complaint regarding quantity or quality, it was to be

made known to the plaintiffs in respect of each truck and within 30 days of

the receipt of consignment, payment was to be made after adjustme