Food Corporation Of India vs M/S. Srinivasa Para Boiled Rice ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 6700 Tel

     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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P.SREE SUDHA

APPEAL SUIT No. 1226 of 2002

DATED: 12 .12 .2022

TRI