FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ORS Vs. SATYENDRA KUMAR GOEL AND ORS
LAWS(UTN)-2013-3-137
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on March 12,2013

Food Corporation Of India And Ors Appellant
VERSUS
Satyendra Kumar Goel And Ors Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24-12-2004, passed by Additional District Judge/F.T.C., Nainital, in Civil Suit No. 79 of 1998, Food Corporation of India Versus Sateyendra Kumar Goel, whereby the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed with costs.
(2.) Brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that Food Corporation of India, does the work of storage and distribution of food grains and for this task invites tenders from the transporters to transport the food grains from one place to other. In this context the tender of defendant Satyendra Kumar Goel (now deceased) was accepted on 1.3.1993 and he was informed by telephone to start the work within seven days, but the defendant did not start the work and the food grains could not be supplied to remote areas of Kumaon Division and there was shortage of food grains. On 23.4.1993 notice was sent to defendant to deposit security money and start the work within a period of seven days, despite notice the defendant neither deposited the security money nor started the transportation work and the plaintiff had to execute the work with the help of other transporters and plaintiff suffered loss. Plaintiff again insisted upon the defendant to start the work without further delay and also told the defendant to do alternate arrangement to complete the work. Again letter was written to the defendant but the defendant did not come forward to complete the work. Therefore the Senior Area Manager, F.C.I. Lucknow forfeited the security money of the defendant to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- and another tender was invited at the risk of defendant and it was due to open on 23-6-1993 and its information was given to the defendant. The defendant came to the office of District Manager, F.C.I. Haldwani and requested to permit him to start the work. The defendant did not do the work during the period 8.4.93 to 18.6.93 and plaintiff suffered loss and this loss was to be recovered from the pending bills of the defendant for the work done by him @ 5%. It is further case of the plaintiff that on the request of defendant the plaintiff did not invite fresh tenders and the defendant did not make available sufficient trucks to transport wheat and there was shortage of wheat in Kumaun and Garhwal regions. The defendant was directed to supply 2000 quintals wheat to Tanakpur upto 30-11-93 but the defendant failed to do so and the plaintiff had to do alternate arrangements at the risk of defendant and plaintiff had suffered a loss of Rs. 2,68,030-73 due to negligence of defendant out of which a sum of Rs. 1,29,905/- was adjusted from the bill of the defendant and sent a demand notice to the tune of Rs. 1,58,125-73. The defendant had his security money to the tune of Rs. 1,20,785/- with the plaintiff and after adjusting this amount, a sum of Rs. 37,340- 95 is due against the defendant and for the recovery of this amount suit was instituted by the plaintiff.
(3.) The defendant contested the suit by filing the written statement and alleged that he had given tender in 1993 for transporting food grain upto the distance of 50 kilometers from Nainital and he had deposited Rs. 20,000/- as security money but due to his sustaining injury, he could not join the work and the plaintiff had a right to forfeit his security money, but the plaintiff did the work through other persons at the risk of the defendant and its information was not given to him. When the defendant knew it he met to Regional Officer and agreed to deduct 5% from his bills towards the expenditure of department. After joining the work, the food grains was returned as the depot in charge and the labourers had loaded spoiled food grains and defendant was not paid the transport charges of food grains and the defendant had instituted suit in Udham Singh Nagar and also filed a writ petition at Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court which is pending.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.