Deoki Nandan, J. - (1.) This is a defendants second appeal in a suit for recovery of Rs. 5370.50 p. with pendents lite and future interest at 1% per mensem on account of damages for the loss of potatoes stored by the plaintiff in the defendants cold storage. The trial court decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 3385-50 p. with proportionate costs and pendents lite and future interest at 3% per annum. The lower appellate Court confirmed the decree. Hence this second appeal.
(2.) It is not disputed that the plaintiff had stored the alleged quantity, of potatoes in chamber No. 3 of the defendants cold storage in the month of April 1968 and that by the time the goods were due to be taken out on the expiry of the storage contract on 30th September, 1968 or immediately thereafter during October, 1968, the potatoes were wholly damaged.
(3.) The point raised by the learned counsel for the appellants was that according to the terms of the contract, there was no liability on the plaintiffs to compensate the plaintiff for the loss on account of defects in the potatoes when they were kept in the cold storage. The alleged defect in the potatoes was that they were Dagi although on the corbon copy of the receipt No. 384 for storage (Ext. A-2) relied upon by the plaintiff, it is said not only that the potatoes were Dagi but also that "Aloo me blite lag gaya hai is liye aloo kharab hone ki koi jimmedari nahi hai." The carbon copy of receipt No. 384 (Ext. A-2) does not bear the signatures of the plaintiff and from the perusal of the entire book Ext. A-2, it appears that the rubber stamp seals about the condition of the potatoes and the freedom of the appellants cold storage from liability whether on account of the condition of potatoes or on account of non-availability of Ammonia were indiscriminately put on each one of the receipts, inasmuch as one finds these stamps put not only on the carbon copies of the receipts that were issued but also on the unissued receipts. The plaintiff had denied that any such receipt was given to him. The agreement Ext. A-I which contains the signatures of the plaintiff does not contain any such note about the condition of the potatoes or the freedom of the cold storage from liability on account of the alleged bad condition of potatoes. It cannot, therefore, be said that the condition of the potatoes was bad when they were put into the defendants cold storage or that the defendant was not liable on that account to make good the loss suffered by the plaintiff.;