THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA
APPEAL SUIT No.1226 of 2002
JUDGMENT:
This appeal is filed against the Judgment of the trial Court in O.S.No.48 of 1997 dated 05.03.2002.
2. The suit is filed by M/s.Srinivas Para-boiled Rice Mill represented by its Managing Partner for recovery of Rs.1,35.335.79 ps with interest against the Food Corporation of India. Plaintiff contended that defendant is a corporate body established under Section 3 of Food Corporation act, 1964 (Act 37 of 1964) having central office at New Delhi and several zonal and Divisional offices throughout India. It is represented by District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Karimnagar district. The plaintiff is a rice milling firm, running a rice mill at Chelgal village in Jagtial mandal since 1983 and has been paying levy rice and delivering the same at the godowns of the defendant at Peddapalli and Mancherial in Adilabad District on payment of transport charges at the rate of 12 paise per quintal per kilometer as per the agreement between the millers and plaintiff and the defendant. In January 1995 the District committee of the defendant measured the distance of all routes including the distance between Chelgal village and Peddapalli. As a new road was laid from Jagtial to Peddapalli via Gollapalli and Dharmaram villages the distance between rice millers and godowns reduced to 55 kms instead of 80 kms. The rice millers welfare association of Karimnagar District made complaint about new measurements of the new District committee in respect of three routes including route from Chelgal to Peddapalli on the ground that the new road laid from Jatial to peddapalli via Gollapalli is not fit for heavily loaded lorry traffic and that the said new road was only a Moram road with many pits throughout the route.
3. On 03.11.1995 a committee of officers of defendant corporation consisting of District Manager, Karimnagar, Joint Manager, Regional Officer and Regional Manager, Hyderabad inspected the said route along with the President of Rice Miller's Welfare Association and found that route is in a very bad condition and unfit for heavily loaded traffic till 1st week of April, 1997 and was further damaged between Novermber, 1995 and February, 1997. Repairs to the new road were started in the month of March, 1997 for laying concrete road. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff has transported levy rice in the years 2 1995 and 1996 from Chelgal to Peddapalli through PWD road via Jagtial and Karimnagar as the new road is not worthy and fit for heavy loaded lorry traffic. Accordingly claimed charges for a distance of 80 kms but the defendant paid only charges of the new road i.e, 55 kms in spite of report dated 03.11.1995. In the year 1995 the plaintiff transported 14,661.38 quintals of rice and in the year 1996 they transported 14,355.16 quintals but the defendant paid only Rs.96,127.04 ps for the year 1995 instead of Rs.1,40,806.84ps and withheld payment of Rs.44,679.80ps. For the year 1996 defendant paid only Rs.95,103.54 ps instead of Rs.1,37,809.53 ps.
4. About 8 months back it was informed that the Regional Manager of the defendant corporation sought a report of the District Collector, Karimnagar regarding condition of the disputed road but no such report was sent by the District Collector and the complaint given by the District Miller's Welfare Association is not decided till today. There was no necessity to call for a report from the District Collector, as report dated 03.11.1997 was already received by the defendant corporation, as such they gave legal notice on 03.02.1997 for settlement of his claim and payment of Rs.1,35,335.79 ps towards transport 3 charges but the corporation gave reply notice on 24.02.1997 requesting him to wait further and not to file a suit until a committee appointed by the District Collector. In the month of March, 1997 repair works to the disputed road started as such plaintiff visited the road on 05.04.1997 and taken Photographs and filed the same along with negatives before the Court. He further stated that in view of repair works started in March, 1997 there is no scope for inspection and verify condition of the disputed road in the years 1994, 1995 and 1996.
5. The Food Corporation of India (from hereinafter referred as F.C.I), Karimnagar started functioning only from 01.10.1991 onwards. Previously it was working as sub-office under District Office, Warangal. Defendant stated that previously they were paying transport charges to the long distance of 80 kms due to non-availability of the new route. Subsequently new roads and bridges were laid throughout the district as such excess payment was objected by the audit party in the year 1995. In order to avoid payment of heavy transportation charges to the Miller's a Committee of officers was formed in the year 1994. They measured the distance from Mill points to nearest F.C.I godowns for arriving at the actual nearest distance and 4 submitted a report in the month of January, 1995 and the distance recorded in the committee report was also accepted by the Millers Association, but they have not accepted three new nearest routes. The plaintiff admitted that new route is laid from Jagtial to Peddapalli via Gollapalli with a distance of 55 kms. The Executive Engineer R & B Division also certified that the route from Jagtial to Peddapalli via Gollapalli is in worthy condition and vehicles can ply on this route with food grains etc., vide letter No.DM/D3/27-28/96-1510 dated 02.07.1996. He further stated that as per letter of the Executive Engineer R & B Division vide R.O.Lr.No. 1-12/9-92 dated 16.04.1996 is fit for transportation of heavy loaded vehicles and the Executive Engineer R & B also issued a certificate therefore defendant rightly paid their transportation charges for 55 kms. In fact, defendant paid the said transportation charges to the other millers from Gollapalli, Ednapally, Dharmaram, Velgatoor and Rajrampalli but there was no complaint by any miller that the disputed route is not worthy. The paddy purchase centre lorries of the defendant are plying only from Gollapalli to Jammikunta via Peddapalli. The disputed route was not in bad condition as alleged by the plaintiff, as such he is not entitled for transport charges to 80 kms as per the rules and regulations of the 5 department. The I.A and P.V.1/94 to the defendant in their vouching audit report for the period from 1/94 to 1/95 they objected excess transport charges paid for 80 kms as against 55 kms available in the distance chart certified by the District Committee as such they recovered from plaintiff from 06.12.1995 and he cannot claim the same on the ground that they were deducted from the bill. The said deduction is not arbitrary and it is justified by the defendant. The claim of the plaintiff is baseless and is not in accordance with the rules and regulations. He also disputed the photographs filed dated 05.04.1997 and requested the Court to dismiss the suit.
6. Plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and also two witnesses on his behalf and marked Exs.A1 to A.36. The defendant was examined as D.W.1 and marked Exs.B1 to B10 on his behalf.
7. The trial Court considering entire evidence on record decreed the suit for an amount of Rs.1,35,335.79ps with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till the date of payment. Aggrieved by the said order this appeal is preferred by the F.C.I. They mainly contended that the trial 6 Court ought to have considered the letter No.DM/D3/27-28/96- 1510 dated 02.07.1996/Ex.B3 of the Executive Engineer, R & B Division, Karimnagar certifying that the route from Jagtial to Peddapalli via Gollapalli is in worthy condition and vehicles can ply in the said route. The Executive Engineer, R & B Division, Karimnagar under R.O.Lr.No.1-12/91-92 dated 16.04.1996 stated that the said route is fit for transportation of heavy loaded vehicles. Appellant further stated that there are many rice miller points on the same disputed route from Jagtial to Peddapalli via Gollapalli and they also supply rice to the corporation but did not complain about the worthiness of the route as it is the nearest route available to the plaintiff on a distance of 55 Kms and it is not in bad condition and as per audit report from January 1994 to January 1995 there was objection for excess transportation charges of Rs.47,910/- paid for 80 Kms instead of 55 Kms and F.C.I also paid charges for 55 Kms for the period of 1994 to 1996 @ Rs.96,127/- and Rs.93,103.54ps respectively and the same was accepted by the plaintiff without any protest, so it is not open to the plaintiff to claim transportation charges for 80 Kms. The trial Court erred in observing that Ex.B3 letter was not mentioned in reply notice dated 24.02.1997 i.e, Ex.A2. It was also observed that Ex.B3 7 dated 02.07.1996 was not placed before the Court till 14.02.2002 and held that it was not in existence. They further stated that plaintiff filed suit without waiting for the report of the two Committees. Defendant also filed bills under Ex.B4 to B10 but they were not considered by the trial Court. They further stated that the Committee constituted by the Regional Manager is not competent to issue any certificate regarding road worthiness. Therefore, requested the Court to set aside the Judgment of the trial Court.
8. This Court heard arguments of both sides and perused the entire record. The parties herein are referred as plaintiff and defendant as arrayed in the suit for the sake of convenience.
9. Plaintiff in the suit stated that rice mill was established in the year 1983 from then onwards they were transporting levy rice to the godowns of defendant at Peddapalli and Mancherial and they were paying transport charges @ 12 paise per k.m per bag. The distance between Chelgal village and Peddapalli was 80 kms. From 1983 to 1994 the transport charges were paid for 80 kms. In the beginning of 1995 when he submitted bills for transport charges for 80 kms, they were reduced on the ground 8 that new road is formed with a distance of 55 kms. He gave complaint on behalf of the Rice Millers Association to the defendant. Basing on their complaint a Committee was formed consisting of Regional Manager, Joint Manager and District Manager along with the President of the Rice Millers Association, P.W.1 and other millers visited the route and a report was submitted by the Committee on 03.11.1995 in which it was clearly stated that the new route via Gollapalli with a distance of 55 kms is not fit for plying heavy loaded lorries. He gave legal notice under Ex.A1 and reply notice under Ex.A2. He also taken photographs of the disputed route on 05.04.1997 on payment of Rs.1200/- to the photographs and marked the same under Ex.A4 to A33 along with negatives under Ex.A34. He also stated that report of the Committee dated 03.11.1995 is marked under Ex.A36. He further stated that they are having another rice mill in Sircilla Town. In Chelgal village there was another rice mill in the name of "Shivarama Krishna Rice factory". They supplied rice to the F.C.I from 1984 to 1994 and during 1995 to 1996. He also admitted that Laxmi grains Rice Mill Jagtial, Renuka Traders Rice Mill Jagtial and Thirumala Modern Rice Mill, Dharoor also supply rice to the F.C.I godowns at Peddapalli through the said shortest route. He stated that he did not know 9 particulars of the audit report of F.C.I for the excess payment. He admitted that he has not filed any protest in writing while receiving the amount of Rs.47,950/-. He admitted that members of the Committee under Ex.A36 report did not belong to R & B department. It was not suggested that there are no technical persons and the report is not valid. He also admitted that rice millers association and F.C.I gave report to the District Collector and he in turn directed the Executive Engineer R & B department to visit the locality and find out the condition of the road but he did not know whether Executive Engineer visited the disputed road and filed certificate on 02.07.1996.
10. P.W.2 is the Photographer, Exs.A4 to A35 were marked through him. He stated that all the neighboring villages of Gollapalli will take the paddy through the said road in tractors and lorries.
11. D.W.1 was working as Assistant Manager, Accounts, F.C.I. He admitted that plaintiff supplied rice from 1993 to till date and also from 1995 to 1996. The owners of the rice mills have to supply rice through the shortest route but plaintiff supplied through the longest route. The other rice mills called 10 Shivaramakrishna Rice Factory supplied rice through the shortest route and they paid bills for him and also one Renuka Traders Rice Mills, Jagtial, Laxmi Grains Rice Mill Jagtial and Thirumala Modern Rice Mill Dharoor also supplied rice through shortest route as the said route is very convenient to them and it was also confirmed by the PWD and R & B department. He also filed bills pertaining to the above rice mills under Ex.B4 to B10. Ex.B1 is the Karimnagar District road map. Ex.B2 is the measurement note for the shortest distance dated 08.09.1994. Ex.B3 is the road worthiness certificate given by the Executive Engineer R & B Division Karimnagar dated 02.07.1996.
12. In the cross-examination D.W.1 stated that he was deposing basing on the records of the corporation. The report under Ex.B2 is given by the officers working at Karimnagar. He further stated that he cannot say that whether the Executive Engineer inspected the disputed route under Ex.B3 or not and Ex.B3 was in their possession from the date of receipt till the date filing but it was filed on 14.02.2002 through D.W.1. He also admitted that all the millers under Ex.B4 to B10 claim for longer route but the amount was paid only for the short route. 11
13. The measurement of the shortest distance from mill place to godown place was prepared on 08.09.1994 and signed by three Assistant Managers. It was mentioned in the said note under Ex.B2 that measurement was conducted from 03.09.1994 to 07.09.1994 with staff. The road worthiness for the movement of the heavy loaded vehicles with rice or any other food grains was given by Executive Engineer (R & B) Division, Karimnagar on 02.07.1996 under Ex.B3. Plaintiff stated that when there was formation of shortest route under Ex.B2 plaintiff along with millers association gave representation to the F.C.I regarding bad condition of the shortest route as such a Committee was constituted by the defendant corporation with the District Manager, Joint Manager and Regional Manager they along with the President of the Rice Millers Association and other visited the route on 02.11.1995 and submitted a report on 03.11.1995 in which it was clearly mentioned that the said route is not fit for heavy loaded lorried and unfit during rainy season, the route is in very bad condition. It was damaged entirely and not in condition for plying of heavy loaded traffic under Ex.A36. The defendant contested that the Committee of persons have no technical knowledge and they did not belong to R & B department as such 12 the said report cannot be relied upon. When complaint received from Rice Millers Association they formed this said Committee but later disputed the same on the ground that they have no technical knowledge. For ascertaining the condition of the road no technical knowledge is necessary as it is patently visible to the naked eye in the photographs filed through P.W.2. Defendant contended that other rice millers also transporting rice through the same route as it is shortest route with the distance of 55 kms. As per the rules in fact there was audit objection for payment of amount to the long distance route with 80 kms as such they are constrained to pay the transport charges only to the distance of 55 kms. Defendant also stated that the amount paid by them was received by all other millers, they did not complain, even the plaintiff received without any written protest as such he cannot claim for the balance amount. He further stated that as per the report of Executive Engineer under Ex.B3 dated 02.07.1996 vehicles can ply on road with endorsement but the said letter was not filed along with the written statement and it was only filed in the year 2002 through D.W.1. The trial Court observed that it was filed later only to substantiate their version. D.W.1 stated that their route was approved by PWD and R & B Departments and it also shown in 13 the Karimnagar route map. Plaintiff stated that it was a moram road as such after issuance of new roads as shorter roads millers association gave complaint to the F.C.I in turn they also formed a Committee and they visited the route and submitted a report under Ex.A36 in which it was clearly held that said route is not fit for transportation of the heavy loaded vehicles as such they claim for amount of 80 kms. Even afterwards they gave another complaint to the District Collector. The District Collector also constituted a Committee but report of it was not filed before filing of the suit and even during the pendency of the suit, moreover in pursuance of their representation the repairs to the said route was taken up in the year 1997 as such P.W.1 got photographed the same and filed the suit before the Court. As the roads were repaired in the year 1997, the report of the Executive Engineer of 1996 is filed before this Court in support of the contention of the defendant. No doubt as per Ex.B2 they are liable to pay the transportation charges for the shortest route but when the said route is not worthy to ply heavy loaded vehicles the plaintiff along with rice millers gave complaint on behalf of their association and basing on the said complaint report was also filed by the officials of F.C.I under Ex.A36 as such defendant cannot reject the claim of the plaintiff on the 14 ground that it is long route. Admittedly, the condition of the road was bad and not worthy to ply the heavy loaded vehicles prior to repairs undertaken by the District Collector in the year 1997 as such for the said period the plaintiff is entitled for transport charges to the long route. The argument of the defendant counsel that even their vehicles with heavy loads passing through the short route and other millers also supplying levy rice through the said route is not tenable. The trial Court on considering the entire facts on record rightly granted decree in favour of the plaintiff and it suffers from no infirmity.
In the result, appeal is dismissed with costs confirming the Judgment of the trial Court in O.S.No.48 of 1997 dated 05.03.2002.
Miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.
_________________________ JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA DATED: 12.12.2022 tri 15 THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA APPEAL SUIT No. 1226 of 2002 DATED: 12 .12 .2022 TRI 16