Delhi High Court
D.D.A. vs M/S.Arihant Road Lines on 8 December, 2008
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : 8th December, 2008.
+ RFA 132/1995
D.D.A. ..... Appellant
Through : Ms.Monica Sharma, Adv.
versus
M/s.Arihant Road Lines ..... Respondent
Through : Mr.Shiv Khorana, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R.MIDHA
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest?
: PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.(Oral)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. A short issue has been approached by a long route.
This is unfortunate.
3. We say so for the reason, Rakesh Jain, proprietor of
M/s.Arihant Road Lines, filed a suit against DDA for recovery of
Rs.73,654.60 towards transportation charges. Calculated @18%
per annum thereon, pre suit interest in sum of Rs.20,100/- was
also claimed. Ignoring the claim of 60 paise, the suit was filed
to recover Rs.93,754/-.
RFA 132/95 Page 1 of 4
4. It is not in dispute that Rakesh Jain had transported
cold twisted deformed steel bars from General Rolling Mills
Ghaziabad to the stores of DDA at Delhi.
5. Obviously the terms of the transportation would have
been recorded in the goods receipt. The same would have
shown whether the same would be payable by the consignor or
the consignee. Neither party brought on record the goods
receipt. For unexplainable reasons, learned counsel who
conducted the trial thought that the long route would be a
better route. May be, daily fees were being charged.
6. Be that as it may, claim in the plaint was that the
transporter transported the goods under the instructions of
Sh.R.L.Jain, Executive Engineer, DDA who had engaged him for
transportation of the goods. Case of DDA was that the goods
had to be transported by the seller i.e. General Rolling Mills and
that a lump-sum price of Rs.40/- per MT was agreed to be paid
which included the price of the goods, octroi etc.
7. At the trial, the plaintiff successfully proved that part
payment had been released to him by DDA. The plaintiff also
successfully proved that in the final agreement entered into
between DDA and General Rolling Mills, exhibited as Ex.PW-2/D-
1 and Ex.PW-2/D-2 it was nowhere recorded that the
transportation charges would paid by General Rolling Mills.
RFA 132/95 Page 2 of 4
8. Learned Judge has therefore opined that the
transportation charges had to be paid by DDA. Suit has been
decree in the sum of Rs.73,654/- together with interest @18%
per annum from the date the suit was filed till realization. Pre
suit interest has been declined.
9. Learned counsel for DDA urges that on 16th
December 1982 vide Ex.PW-2/1, General Rolling Mills had
agreed to bear transportation charges.
10. Learned Trial Judge has noted the said exhibit in para
19 of the impugned decision and has concluded the relevant
part whereof was relied upon by DDA did not evidence so.
Indeed, said part of the letter in question has been pressed into
aid before us even today.
11. Following clause in Ex.PW-2/1 is referred to:-
"That the above rates are ex-our works and the material
can be delivered at your site, DDA store yard, Janakpuri,
New Delhi by M/s.S.P.Transport Co. Ghaziabad after
charging from you, a sum of Rs.40/- per M.T. including
loading, Delhi Octroi, Unloading and Stacking at your
Godown in Delhi or New Delhi."
12. Suffice would it be to state that loading, unloading
and stacking charges are referred to in the trade and business
as „handling charges‟. They are distinct from transportation
charges. Rs.40/- per metric tonne quoted by the seller i.e.
General Rolling Mills was the price of the goods and including
loading, unloading and stacking as also octroi. Ex facie, it did
RFA 132/95 Page 3 of 4
not include the transportation charges.
13. In this context it is important to note that admittedly
part payment towards transportation was paid by DDA. Learned
counsel for the appellant has not been able to explain as to
under what circumstances part payment towards transportation
charges was released.
14. We note that DDA has with held Shri R.L.Jain who
should have been produced in the witness box and make to
state that he never entrusted the transportation of the goods to
the transporter.
15. We find no merits in the appeal. The same is
dismissed.
16. No costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
DECEMBER 08, 2008 J.R. MIDHA, J.
Dharmender
