FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS DISTRICT Vs. SATYENDRA KUMAR GOEL (DECEASED)
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Food Corporation Of India Through Its District
Satyendra Kumar Goel (Deceased)
Click here to view full judgement.
B.S.VERMA, J. -
(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 3 filed a writ petition at Lucknow
Bench of the Allahabad High Court which is pending.
The trial court on the basis of pleadings of parties framed following issues in the suit: -
1 - Whether the plaintiff department is entitled to get a sum of Rs. 37,400/ - from the defendant, after adjusting a sum of Rs. 1,20,785/ -
as security money of the defendant, from a sum of Rs. 1,29,905/ - of bills
due against the plaintiff, for not doing the work as per agreement dated
28 -1 -1993?. 2 - Whether the plaintiff department had acted illegally by forfeiting the security money of the defendant ?.
3 - To what relief the plaintiff is entitled to get?.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.