- (1.) This Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the Food Corporation of India (for short TCI') challenging the judgment and decrees passed by both the courts below decreeing the suit filed by the respondents-plaintiffs for recovery of Rs. 2,75,370/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of accrual thereof to the date of decision and future interest thereafter at the rate of 6% per annum till realisation of the entire decretal amount. Brief facts of the case necessary for adjudication of the instant appeal are that a civil suit was instituted by the Truck Operators Union, Nabha (for short 'Union') through its member Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta as plaintiff No. 1 and Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta as plaintiff No. 2 seeking recovery of Rs. 3,74,500/-(which included Rs. 2,75,370/-as principal and Rs. 99,130/- as interest @ 12% p.a.) with costs and interest on account of said amount having been illegally and unilaterally deducted by the appellant-defendant from the total payment of Rs. 15,16,643.60 for alleged shortage of paddy transported by the Union without affording an opportunity of hearing.
(2.) As per facts set out in the plaint, the plaintiff-Union consisted of 825 trucks under the ownership of different persons and Vijay Kumar Gupta was one of the members of the Union. He, therefore, was competent to file the suit on behalf of the Union as well as in his personal capacity having direct interest in the recovery. President of the Union was elected every year through ballot and in the year 2001, the defendant had allotted work of transporting paddy to the Union and an agreement to that effect was executed by Vijay Kumar Gupta, plaintiff No. 2, as the then President of the Union with the defendant, but to the utter surprise of the plaintiffs, the defendant illegally, unilaterally and without affording opportunity of hearing to the plaintiffs, put shortage of paddy upon the plaintiffs and deducted Rs. 2,75,370/- from total payment of Rs. 15,16,643.60 which was to be paid by the appellant - defendant for the above said transportation work.
(3.) In the written statement, the appellant-defendant denied that the Union had 825 trucks or that respondent No. 2/plaintiff No. 2 was one of the members of the Union or that he was competent to file the suit on behalf of the Union or in his personal capacity or that he was having direct interest in the recovery, or that he was the President of the Union or the agreement had been executed through him.;