The High Court · 2025

as arrayed before the trial court.

4. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money of Rs.14,00,00C,/- with interest at 12o/o per annum from the date of decree till realization with costs. The plaintifl contended that it was a private limited company doing the business of marketing and selling of seeds. It was having agents all over India for marketing the products and one of its marketing agent, by name, M/s. Om Sai Agro Marketing was located at Lucknow. D'uring the course of its business, the plaintiff engaged the services of the defendant for transportation of products by its agents to Hyderabad and thus, four trucks load of agricultural seeds of maize were transported to Hyderabad on 16.07.2014, 17.07.2014, 23.07.2014 and l 2 Dr.cRR,J CCCA No.a52 of20u

25.07.2014. The freight charges amounting to Rs.2,23,083/- was payable at the dispatch point. The said goods were delivered to the address ofthe plaintiff at Hyderabad in August, 2014. The defendant did not come forward to receive the freight charges from the plaintiff. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff also engaged the services of the defendant for transportation of the 5m truck of maize seeds and the same was dispatched through consignment No.F410247 dated 29.09.2014. Even after waiting till December, 2014, the said stocks were not delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff. After verification and confirmation with the consignor, the plaintiff coresponded with the defendant about non-delivery of 5th consignment which was of a value of Rs.20,00,000/-. The said stocks were perishable in nature as the seeds had to be protected and kept in moderate temperature in cold storage, otherwise they would be damaged and not useful. Through the correspondence, the plaintiff realized that the defendant had illegally detained and withheld the stocks sent through them in their godown and demanded the plaintiff for payment of freight charges and also issued notices to the plaintiff on 04.02.2015 acknowledging the receipt of the consignment and also expressed its intention to declare the consignment as unclaimed under Section 15 (1) of the Carriage by Road Act, 2007 and to sell the consignment if the amounts were not paid within seven days and that he would auction the goods worth Rs.20,00,000/- for ,'.:: J D.,GRR,J CCCA No.ls2oI20l8 recovery of Rs.2,79,879/-. The plaintiff had given reply notice through their counsel on 11.02.2015 by narrating the true facts and also brought to the notice of the defendant that the goods had to be safeguarded and protected to aloid germination as the entire material would lose its value and that the de lendant could not withhold the stocks without delivering the consignment to the plaintiff causing enormous loss to the plaintiff and expressed thro,rgh the legal notice that the ptaintiff was ready to pay the freight charge:i and requested to deliver the truck load of maize seeds immediately to avoid further complications and wamed the defendant that if the material was damaged, it would be worthless and the damages had to be paid by the defendant. The defendant communicated to the plaintiffby letter dated 25.03.2015 that auction would be held on 10.04.2015 and that the bids woulcl be called before 06.04.2015 and invited the plaintiff for participation in the same. The plaintiff further submitted that the defendant filed Company Petition No.l l4 of 2016 under Section a33(e)(f) and 439(c) of the Companies Act for winding up of the plaintiff company. The plaintiff conterrded that the defendant could not retain the stocks consigned through it and could not put them to auction and realize the amounts and again claim for the freight charges instead of retuming the remaining balance received by putting to auction of the stocks. As such, he was entitled to clairrr datnages from the defendant, but was confining itself for I 4 Dr.GRR,! CCC,4 No-452 of 20 tE the loss of the value of the goods bv deducting the amounts payable tou,ards freight charges, which would come to Rs.14,00,000/_ as per the books and statement.

5. The defendant fired written statement admitting that the praintiff had engaged his services for transportation of its agricurtural seeds and booked the consignment under five trucks on 16.07.2014, 17.07.2014,

23.07.2014 and 25.07.2014 and. 29.09.2014 and agreed to pay an amount ofRs.2,79,879/- and assured the defendant that as and when the defendant delivered the seeds at Hyderabad, the plaintiff company would pay the delivery charges upon raising the invoices at Hyderabad. As per the terms and conditions agreed upon between them, the defendant company had to deliver the material from Kanpur to Hyderabad. The plaintiff company fe[ due an amount of Rs.2,79,879/- to the defendant as such, the defendant company filed company Petition No.[4 of 2016 before the High court to wind up the plaintiff company and to appoint an offrcial liquidator to take possession and assets of the plaintiff company and the same was pending. The defendant further submitted that the consignment pertaining to F410247 dated 29.09.20t4 worth of Rs.10,00,000/_ reached the delivery location on 09.12.2014. The defendant tried to deliver the said consignment on 10.12.2014, but the plaintiff refused to take the 5 D.GRR,J CCC4 L'o.ls2 of 20lE consignment, as such the same was declared as unclaimed. The defendant sent an E-mail Cated 29.11.2014 to the plaintiff directing the plaintiff to pay the transportation charges towards transportation of seeds through five trucks. The dt:fendant by letters dated 09.01.2015 and 20-03.2015 requested the plaintiff to receive the material and to pay the transportation charges. But, there was no positive response from the plaintiff to the above letters. Inspite of several reminders and requests, the plaintiff company defaulted in payment of transportation charges to the defendant The plaintiff company issued a letter dated 10.01.2015 wherein instead of agreeing to pay the transportation charges further demanded the defendant for delivery of lhe consignment immediately at the destination which was not justifiable, e,s such prayed to dismiss the suit

6. Basing on the above pleadings, the trial court i.e. the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad framed the issues as follows: D Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount of Rs.14,00,000/- from the defendant together with interest? ii) To what relief?

7. The R.egional Manager of the plaintiff company was examined as PW.1 and Exs.r\l to A16 were marked on behalf of the plaintiff. The H.R. 6 Df,GRRJ CCCA No.452 of20rE Manager of the defendant company was examined as DW. 1 and Ex.B l was marked on behalfofthe defendant.

8. On considering the oral and documentary evidence on record. the trial court decreed the suit in part against the defendant with costs for a sum of Rs.7,76,9171- and directed the defendant to pay the said amount within two months from the date of the judgment, failing which ordered that the plaintiff wourd be entitled for interest at 6%o per annum from the date ofjudgn.rent till the date ofrealization. 9' Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the defendant preferred this appeal.

10. Notice sent to the respondent_plaintiff was returned with an endorsement as 'unclaimed'. As such, considering it as deemed service. this Court proceeded to decide the appeal on merits. I 1. Heard Ms. Samhitha Nimmada, leamed counsel representing Sri Vivek Jain, leamed counsel on record for the appellant_defendant. 12' The leamed counser for the appeilant-defendant contended that the trial court erroneously decreed the suit without considering the rights rrnd obligations of the parties to the contract and that the respondent 7 D.GRR,J CCCA No.1s2 of 2016 breached the contract by non-payment. Without considering the plea of the appellant-defendant that it had rightly withheld the 5'h truck since the respondent-plaintiff failed to pay the transportation charges for the previously delivered four trucks, partly decreed the suit. The appellant- delendant was not responsible for the damage caused to the goods since it was the respo.ndent-plaintiff who breached the contract. In the entire judgment of ttLe trial court there was no reference to breach of contract or assessment of rights and obligations of the parties to the contract. [t was first necessary to asceftain the point of time, the payment of the lour trucks became due. As per the case of the respondent-plaintiff itself, freight charges have t.o be paid at the dispatch point, but the respondenrplaintiff had set up a different case in its cross-examination claiming that the payment was to be made within 45 to 90 days. Even assuming that the business betw,:en the appellant-defendant and the respondent-plaintiff was done on credii basis, the maximum time period for payment was 90 days and the said time period ended in December, 2014 from September, 20i4. The trial court erred in not considering the inconsistencies in the respondent-plaintiffl s case as to when the freight charges became due. The respondent-plirintiff, failed to discharge the burden of proof laid upon them that the appeilant breached the contract. The appellant was entitled to withhold the <lelivery of 5th truck by exercising the right of lien under the I 8 Dr.CRR,l CCCA No./s2 of2018 Carriage by Road Act, 2007 and relied upon the judgment of this Court in Pulavarthi Sitarama Murthy and another v. Bangaru Sobhanadri and anotherl, wherein the High court had dismissed the plaintifrs case for damages and held that breach ofcontract had to be proved by the plaintiff prior to seeking the damages. She further relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Tarini Kamal pandit and others v. prafulla Kumar Chatterjee (dead) by Legal Representatives2 on the aspect thar pure question of law not involving any inu"rrt*urion of facts can be raised at any stage.

13. Now the points for consideration are: i) Whether the respondent-plaintiff is entitled to recover the amountof Rs.14,,00,000/- as claimed for? ii) Whether the trial court committed decreeing the suit in part holding the defe pay damages of Rs.7,76,9171_ with costs? any error in ndant liable to

14. Point No.l: The plaintiff filed the suit for damages on the ground of breach of contract. To ascertain whether a party is liable for pecuniary loss or not, the court first need to look into the rights and obligations of the parties to the contract and whether the loss suffered by the aggrieved party was I cRp No.88 of t949 dared I4.07.t9s0 ' 1979 (3) SCC 280 9 DT.GRR,I CCCA No.1s2of201E because of the trreach committed by the other party and thereafter procebd to quantiff the clamages.

15.Asseenfromthefactsofthecase,therewasnodisputethatthe ptaintiff engag:d the services of the defendant for transportation of agricultural seeds of maize from his agent at Kanpur to Hyderabad and four trucks load of seeds were delivered on 16'07'20 14, 17'07'2014'

23.07.2014 and 25.07.2014. It was also not in dispute tlat the 5'h truck of maize seeds was dispatched through consignment No.F410247 dated

29.09.2014 an<[ the plaintiff was due an amount of Rs'2,79,879/- to the defendant towrLrds freight charges of consignment of five trucks. It was also admitted lhat the freight charges for the earlier four trucks were not paid by the plaintiff to the defendant by the date of consignment of the 5'h truck.

16. The Regional Manager of the plaintiff company examined as PW. I admitted. that the freight charges amounting of Rs 2,23,083/- for four trucks was payable at the dispatch point and that the said goods were delivered at th.eir address in Hyderabad in August, 2014' His contention was that they )rad booked the consignment for transportation of maize and other crop s(reds on 29.09.2014, but even though they waited till December, 2014, the said stocks were not delivered by the defendant to t 10 DT.GRX"J CCCA No.|s2 of 2018 their Hyderabad address. He stated about the letter addressed by their company to the defendant on 10.01.2015 marked under Ex.A3 requesting to deliver the consignment held by them immediately at the addressed destination and to get their payment through office. In the said retter itself, in the first line, it was mentio,ed that the letter was addressed with reference to the letter addressed by the defenda nt on 27.12.2014 regarding the pending dues. Thus, no efforts were made by the plaintiff company to pay the due amount of Rs.2,23,0g3/- p,ayable by tl.rern for the four trucks before seeking delivery of the goods consigned through 5rh truck and further asked the defendant to deriver the consignment of the 5h truck and then thereafter, they would clear the dues. pw.l in his cross examination admitted that the four trucks were delivered and that they received the invoices but the amount was not paid. With regard to the mode of payment, he stated that after door delivery of products they received the invoices from the defendant and thereafter within 45 to 90 days they used to make the payments. This part of the evidence of pW.l was against his own pleadings that the amount was payable at the dispatch point. Even if the same is considered as true, the period of 90 days would end by December, 2014 from the date of the 5th consignment on 29.09.2014. Ex'A2 itself would disclose that the correspondence was initiated by the defendant to the plaintiff regarding the pending dues on 27.12.2014 arrd, it 1l DT.GRR,J CCC4 No.1s2 of 2018 was not the plaintiff who approached the defendant for delivery of goods by making payrnent of the due amount. The correspondence made by the plaintiff to the rlefendant under Ex.A2, A.3 and A7 seeking delivery of th'e goods without rnaking any payment for the goods received by them for the earlier consignrents is untenable, as admittedly, the four trucks were already deliver,:d in August, 2014 and the defendant had discharged its obtigation undr:r the contract. It was the plaintiff who breached the contract by nol paying the freight charges for the already delivered four trucks even afte,r the amounts became due

17. As seen from Section 15 of the Carriage by Road Act, 2007, the common carrier of the goods had lien over the goods when the consignee fails to make payment of the freight. Section 15 of the Carriage by Road AcL2001 readt; as follows: "15. ltight of common carrier in case of consignees default:- (1) If the consignee fails to take delivery of any consignment of goods within a period of thirty days from the date of notice given by the common carrier, such consignment may be deemed as uncla'med: Pr:vided that in case of perishable consignment, the period of thirty days shall not appty and the consignment shall be deemed unclaimed after a period of t raq.ry-four hours of service of notice or an'r lesser period as may be mutually a$eed to by and between the common carrier and the consignor. t2 D.GRN cccA No.452 or20t, !,i ..-|l; (2) In the case of an unclaimed consigrunent under sub-section (l), the common carrier may, (a) If such consignment is perishable in nature, have the right to sell the consignment; or (b) if such consignment is not perishable in nature, cause a notice to be served upon the consignee or upon the consignor if the consignee is not available, requiring him to remove the goods within a period offifteen days from the date ofreceipt of the notice and in case of failure to comply with the notice, the common carrier shall have the right to sell such consignment without any further notice to the consignee or the consignor, as the case may be. (3) The common carrier shall, out of the sale proceeds received under sub-section (2), retain a sum equal to the freight. storage and other charges due including expenses incurred for the sale, and the surplus, if any, from such salc proceeds shall be retumed to the consignee or the consignor, as the case may be. (4) Unless otherwise agreed upon between the common carrier and consignor, the common carrier shall be entitled 1o detain or dispose ofthe consignment in part or full to recover his dues in the event of the consignee failing to make payment of the freight and other charges payable to the common carrier at the time of taking delivery."

18. Thus, the defendant is entitled to detain or dispose of the consignment in part or in full to recover his dues in the event of the consignee failing to make payment of the freight payable to the common 13 D..GRR,l CCCA No.ls2 oJ 20IE carrier. Thus, the defendant had not committed any breach of contract entitling the plaintiff to claim damages

19. But, however, as seen from Section 15 (3) of the Act, though the commoncar-rierhadtherighttoselltheconsignment,heshalloutofthe sale proceeds re,:eived under Section 15 (2) can retain the sum equal to the freight, storage lnd other charges due including the expenses incurred for thesalebutthesurplusfromsuchsaleproceedsshallberetumedtothe consignee. But. the evidence of DW.l is silent on this aspect' Though the corespondencemadebetweenthepartieswoulddisclosethatthe defendant addrt:ssed a letter to the plaintiff on 25.03.2015 under Ex.A5 asking the plaintiffto participate in the bid stating that an auction would be held on 10.04.i:015. no evidence was adduced as to for what amount the goods were sold and the expenditure incurred by them for issuing notification, conducting auction etc.

20.Theplaintiffspleadedthattheworthofthegoodstransported through the 5t'' consignment was of a value of Rs'20,00,0001, but the statement hted by them marked under Ex.A6 would show the value of the goods as F(s. 14,12,5281-. PW.l admitted in his cross examination that though the worth of the product in the 5th consignment was shown as Rs.14,00,000i- in Ex.A6 statement, it was shown in the delivery challan as I 14 -ir: Dr.GRR,t CCCA No.l52 oJ20ts Rs.10,00,000/-. pw.l also admitted that Ex.A6 was a self prepared document and that they had not stated the value ofthe goods in the legal aotice issued by them to the defendant though they made the correspondence 2 to 3 times. As the delivery challan dated, 25.09.2014 marked under Ex.A16 pertaining to F410247 wourd discrose the varue of the goods as Rs.10,00,000/-, the same can only be taken into consideration. As both the parties admitted that the freight charges lbr delivery of five trucks would amo,nt to Rs.2,79,g79l-, the said amount can be deducted by the defendant' As the defendant must have incurred some amount towards the expenses for issuing notif,rcation, conducting auction etc., he is entitled to an amount of Rs.20,000/_ (approximately assessed in the absence of any evidence adduced by them) in addition to the amounts due to them. I.[encc, the defendant need to pay the balance amount of Rs.7,00, I l/_ (Rs.10,00,000/. - Rs.2,99,8791- (Rs.2,7g,870 + Rs.20,000/_)) under the principle of unjust enrichment. It was unjust for the defendant to keep the benefit as it is against the principles of faimess and equity. As the defendant failed to retum the balance amount received by him, the plaintiff is entitled to claim the same. As such, this Court is of the view that the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the balance amount of Rs7,00,12rl- only from the defendant which was withheld by the defendant after deducting the amounts due to them. point No.l is answered accordingly. 15 D|.GR-R J CCCA No.152of20lE

21. Point No.2: Though ttLe trial court had not discussed the rights and obligations of the parties to thr: contract and which party committed breach and whether the loss sufferod by the aggrieved party was because of the breach committed by tlLe other party, came to a right conclusion that the plaintiff was entitled for the loss of value of the goods sold by the defendant after deducting the fr,:ight charges. The observations of the trial court that non- payment of the charges for the first four trucks would not automatically give any right to the delendant to withhold the producrs, is not correct. The trial court tLad not considered the provisions of the Caniage by Road Act,2007 undel which defendant has a right of lien to recover his dues. The said provrsion was also mentioned by the defendant in their correspondence to the plaintiffl, marked by the plaintiff himself, under Ex.A3. The ob:;ervations of the trial courl that the defendant failed to deliver the products inspite of several correspondence and caused loss by withholding the charges payable by the plaintiff for the four trucks, are incorrect and agrtinst the law on this aspect. As such, the same are liable to be set aside. The observation of the trial court that, as the goods in the fifth truck were not delivered, the defendant was not liable for the said amount, is also not correct as the defendant exercised his right of lien over the products anc he had transported the goods all the way from Kanpur to t6 Dr.GRR,f cccA N0.152 of 20 t E Hyderabad. The trial court deducting an amount of Rs.2,23,083/- towards the freight charges ofonly four trucks by excluding the freight charges of the hfth tr-uck is also not correct. As such, the judgment of the trial court is liable to be set aside on these aspects.

22. In the result, the Appeal is allowed in parl modifying the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2018 in OS. No.638 of 2016, passed by the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, holding thar the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.7,00,121l- with interest @6% per amum from the date of suit titl realization. The defendant is directed to pay ttre said amount to the plaintiff within a period of two months from the date ofreceipt ofa copy of this judgment. No costs Miscellaneous Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed s - K. SRINIVASA RAO JOINT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// SECTION OFFICER To,

1. The lV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2. One CC to SRI VIVEK JAIN, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CD Copies ADK,/PSL \c{ HIGH COURT DATED:0110512025 JUDGMENT+DECREE 2 DRAFTS CCCA.No.452 ot 2018 STAT€ '-Q o t !, N\s $6 -/ { 1; o;5 rn> s + PARTLY ALLOWING THE CCCA WITHOUT COSTS 6 o."[- ,4' \Q(. z. .dq"' IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE FIRST DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE. HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.RADHA RANI CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: 452 OF 2018 Between: I\Iis. Patel lnteorated Loqistics Limited, Formallv known as M/s. Patel Roadways' Reptd., by its Executive-Mr. Makkilineni Ajay, S/o M.Raj Gopal, R/o. Sy.no. 98, Oppo.siteRutiwy 9, Nl-1-7, Kompally, Rangareddy. ...AppellanUDefendant AND M/s. Vikkvs Aqrisciences Private Limited, Office situated at Plot no. 5, Sagar Societv. hoad no.2. Baniara Hills, Hvderabad-034, Reptd by its Regional Manaeiei B.Sampath Reddy, S/o. Srihivasa Reddy. Aged aboul42 yrs. R/o. ECIL' Hyderabad. ...RespondenUPlaintiff Appeal under section 96 R/w Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C against the Judgment and Decree Dated 16.03.2018 made in o.s.No.63B of 2016 on the file of the Court of the lV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court' Hyderabad This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal' the Judgment and Decree of the Lower court and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri Vivek Jain, Advocate for the Appellant and none appeared for the resPondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows:

1. That the CCCA be and hereby is partly allowed modifying the.iudgment and decree dated 16.03.2018 in OS. No.638 of 2016, passed by the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, holding that the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs.7,00,1211 with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of suit till realization;

2. That the defendant is directed to pay the said amount to the plaintiff within a period of twc, months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment ;

3. That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal. Sd/- K. SRINIVASA RAO INT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S CTION OFFICER To,

1. The lV Senicrr Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad 2. Two CD Copies ADK/PSL Uk I \ HIGH COURT DATED:01 10512025 DECREE CCCA.No.452 of 2018 PARTLY ALLOWING THE CCCA WITHOUT COSTS u."\fl"A frr"