RSA No. 1041 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 1041 of 2009 Date of Decision: 20.10.09 Chadha Motor Transport Co. (P) Ltd. having its Head Office, at Ghee Mandi, Amritsar, through its Chairman, S. Charanjit Singh Chadha. ... Appellant Versus Modern Trading Co. (Delhi) Pvt. Ltd., having its registered office at Darya Ganj, New Delhi, and branch office at Lajpat Nagar, Jalandhar City, through its Manager, Principal Officer and Authorized Official Sh. Ashok Sharma. ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present: Mr. Munish Bahl, Advocate, for the appellant. SHAM SUNDER, J. * * * * This appeal, is directed, against the judgment and decree, dated 23.01.08, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, vide which, it partly accepted the appeal, against the judgement and decree 22.02.06, rendered by the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jalandhar, and decreed the suit of the plaintiff, to the RSA No. 1041 of 2009 2 extent of recovery, in the sum of Rs. 87,291.25/- with interest. 2. The facts, in brief, are that, Modern Trading Company, manufacturer of electronic products, under the name and style of BUSH, had booked consignment of its products, in perfect sealed cartoons with the defendant, for being carried, from Jalandhar, to Shimla. It was stated that the goods worth Rs. 87,185.25/-, were consigned, by the plaintiff, in the name of self, vide five different goods receipt dated 09.03.91. It was further stated that it was the express term of the consignment, that the goods, be delivered, on production of original good receipts only, at Shimla. It was further stated that, however, Shimla Office of the defendant, delivered the goods, without obtaining the original good receipts. It was further stated that the original good receipts, were received back, by the plaintiff, without having been retired by the intending buyer. It was further stated that the plaintiff, vide various letters, called upon the defendant, to return its goods, but to no avail. The defendant, was also asked, by the plaintiff, to settle the claim, vide letter dated 23.09.91, but in vain. It was further stated that the plaintiff also took the matter to the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Jalandhar. It was held, by the said Forum that only the Civil Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter. Ultimately, a suit for recovery was filed. 3. The defendant, put in appearance, and filed written statement, wherein, it took up various objections, and contested the suit. It was pleaded that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary RSA No. 1041 of 2009 3 parties; that the suit was barred by time; and that the goods, in question, were delivered, by the defendant, to Shimla Watch Company, with the consent of the plaintiff, and, as such, the latter, was estopped, from filing the suit, by its own act and conduct. It was stated that necessary notice, under the Carriers Act, was not served upon the defendant, before filing the suit. It was further stated that, as per terms and conditions, printed on the goods receipts, disputes arising thereupon, were referable to the Arbitrator and, as such, the Civil Court, had no jurisdiction, to entertain and try the suit. It was further stated that the plaintiff was not entitled to recover any amount or interest. It was further stated that the defendant is only an agent of Chadha Motor Transport Company, and was not liable to be impleaded, as a party, to the suit. It was further stated that since the goods, were booked, at the owner's risk, the defendant, was not liable, to make good any loss, caused to the plaintiff. It was further stated that Ashok Sharma, Principal Officer of the Modern Trading Company (Delhi), Pvt. Ltd., was not competent, to file the suit. It was further stated that as Shimla Watch Company, did not find some of the goods to its liking, it rebooked the same, to the plaintiff, alongwith a cheque, in the sum of Rs. 18,426.35/-, against the goods, retained by it. It was further stated that the Civil Courts at Jalandhar had no jurisdiction to try the suit. It was further stated that the plaintiff, refused to accept the returned goods. The remaining averments, were denied, being wrong. RSA No. 1041 of 2009 4 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were struck:- (i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of the amounts as alleged in the plaint with interest? OPP (ii) Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? OPD (iii) Whether the present suit is barred by time? OPD (iv) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct? OPD (v) Whether no notice as contemplated under the carries Act was served upon the defendant by the plaintiff? OPD (vi) Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD (vii) Relief. 5. After hearing the Counsel for the parties, and, on going through the evidence, on record, the trial Court, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. 6. Feeling aggrieved, an appeal was preferred, by the defendant/appellant, which was partly accepted, by the Court of Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, vide judgement and decree dated 23.01.08. 7. Still feeling dissatisfied, the instant Regular Second Appeal, has been filed by the defendant/appellant. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the appellant, and have gone through the documents, on record, carefully. RSA No. 1041 of 2009 5 9. The Counsel for the appellant, submitted that the Civil Court, at Jalandhar, had no territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and try the suit. He further submitted that the head office of the defendant/appellant, was at Amritsar. He further submitted that the defendant/appellant, was not having branch office, at Jalandhar. He further submitted that, thus, no cause of action to file the suit arose at Jalandhar. He further submitted that the goods, were carried, at the risk of the owner, and, as such, the defendant/appellant, was not responsible for any loss. He further submitted that the judgements and decrees of the Courts below, being illegal, were liable to be set aside. 10. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the contentions, advanced by the Counsel for the appellant, in my considered opinion, the appeal is liable to be dismissed, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. In Madvan Nair Vs. Bhaskar Pillai (2005) 10, SCC, 533, Harjeet Singh Vs. Amrik Singh (2005) 12, SCC, 270, H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa, JT 2006(2), SC, 228, and Gurdev Kaur and others Vs. Kaki and others (JT 2006 (5) SC, 72, while interpreting the scope of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the principle of law, laid down, was that the High Court, has no jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of fact, arrived at by the trial Court, and the first Appellate Court, even if the same are grossly erroneous as the legislative intention was very clear that the legislature never wanted second appeal to become a “third trial on facts” or “one more dice in the gamble.” It was further held that the jurisdiction of the High Court RSA No. 1041 of 2009 6 in interfering with the judgements of the Courts below, is confined only to the hearing of substantial questions of law. The goods, were admittedly booked with the booking agency of the defendant/appellant, at Rama Mandi, Jalandhar. The booking agency of the defendant/appellant, at Rama Mandi, Jalandhar, issued the goods receipts P1, P3, P5, and P7, at Jalandhar Cantt. The agent of the defendant/appellant, was working, on its behalf, at Jalandhar. Thus, cause of action, accrued at Jalandhar, and, as such, the Courts below, were right, in holding, that the Civil Courts, at Jalandhar, had territorial jurisdiction, to entertain and try the suit. 11. From the judgements of the Courts below, it was proved, that the goods, in question, were delivered, to the booking agency of defendant/appellant, at Jalandhar, by the plaintiff/respondent, which was to be taken to Shimla, for supply to the consignee, i.e. M/s Shimla Watch Company, on production of original goods receipts, at Shimla office of the defendant/appellant. It is evident, from the judgements of the Courts below, that the original goods receipts, were not tendered by anybody, at Shimla office of the defendant/appellant. Even then, the defendant/appellant, supplied the goods to M/s Shimla Watch Company. No doubt, a plea, was taken, by the defendant/appellant, that the plaintiff/respondent, orally told them, to supply the goods, without production of the original goods receipts, yet such a plea, was rightly not taken into consideration by the Courts below, on the ground, that when all the transactions, between the parties, were on the basis of the RSA No. 1041 of 2009 7 documents, it was not at all imaginable, that oral instructions, were given, to the defendant/appellant, to deliver the goods, to the consignee, without production of the original goods receipts. 12. The findings of fact, recorded by the trial Court with some modification, by the Appellate Court, on the aforesaid points, being based, on the correct reading and due appreciation of evidence, and law, on the point, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, and warrant no interference, by this Court. The judgments and decrees of the Courts below, are, thus, liable to be upheld. The submission of the Counsel for the appellant, being without merit, must fail, and the same stands rejected. 13. No substantial question of law, much less substantial, has arisen, in this appeal, for the determination of this Court. 14. For the reasons recorded above, the instant Regular Second Appeal, being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with costs. 20.10.2009 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE