Madhya Pradesh Rajya Beej Avam vs Shri Durga Transport Service
Bench: R Garg
Issue:
The plaintiff asked to deliver some quantity of wheat seeds to the defendant as they run a transport service, but the defendant neither delivered nor returned, for which the plaintiff claims compensation for.
Appellant’s Contention:
The petitioner contention before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh is that his suit filed before the Trial Court was dismissed stating that the plaintiff/Appellant did not fulfill Section 10 of the Carrier Act, which mentions that statutory notice was not given to the defendant therefore the suit was dismissed accordingly. So plaintiff filed an appeal in the High Court to review his suit and decree his claim of Rs.41,000/- for as the liability to be paid for his loss.
Facts:
- The Plaintiff loaded 160 quintals of his wheat seed worth Rs.36,000 in the defendants truck for delivery, the defendant was running a transport service business.
- The defendant did not deliver the goods in Jagdalpur, which was the place mentioned by the plaintiff for the delivery of goods.
- The plaintiff informed one of the workers in the transport service that his goods has not been delivered and has also requested the cost of the goods to be paid or to produce the receipt copy of the consignee of the said goods.
- Various letters was sent by Plaintiff, but there was no response from the defendant and even legal notice was sent, but there was response for that too.
- Hence after all this efforts to claim, the plaintiff filed a suit against defendant in the trial court.
- The Trial Court gave its decision in favor of defendant by dismissing the suit filed by plaintiff stating the absence of the statutory notice.
- Further appeal was brought to High Court to reconsider the suit of the plaintiff/appellant.
- The High Court interpreted Section 10 in a way that when “given” is mentioned under the section it means that the owner needs to send the information to the defendant regarding the issue.
- In this case, the notice has been sent to the defendant’s address so the defendant could not take defence under section 10 of Carrier Act as plaintiff has proven his issuance of notice.
Respondent’s Contention:
The Respondent claims that the plaintiff’s suit shall be dismissed because a written notice wasn’t given to the plaintiff, which is mentioned in Section 10 of the Carriers Act. The learned counsel Shri Deoras stated that there is no plea in the plaint, he said the word “sent” and “written” are different, so writing a notice doesn’t necessarily mean posting it.
Judgment:
By examining the case, the High Court reversed it’s decision on the judgment which was already given by the Trial Court, stating that the Learned trial court interpreted Section 10 wrongly, as the plaintiff has taken all measures in issuing letters and notice to the defendant. The defendant also had knowledge of the notice sent by the plaintiff which he cannot deny. Therefore the claim of the Appellant was decreed, setting aside the judgment of Trial Court.
“The plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs. 41,000/- is hereby decreed. The plaintiff is held entitled to interest on the principal amount Rs. 36,000/- at 9 per cent per annum from the date of the suit till realization. The plaintiff would also be entitled to the costs of the suit and of this appeal from the defendant. A decree be drawn up accordingly.” Said the High Court Of Madhya Pradesh on the appeal of Rajya Beej Avam.
Click here to register
