RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. - (1.) FOR the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, delay of 2 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 41,000 claiming that they are dealing in sale and purchase of food grains and during the period 2002 -03, defendant No.2 (i.e. the appellant) had purchased wheat worth Rs. 39,95,666 through defendant No.1 (i.e. respondent No.3) and made payment through Cheques, however, a sum of Rs.28,135 remained due to the plaintiffs. Entries of the aforesaid amount were made in the account books in the regular course of business. Since the defendants failed to make payment of the aforesaid amount, necessity arose to file the instant suit claiming Rs.41,000, which is inclusive of interest amount of Rs.12,865 @ 18% per annum as per the trade practice. The suit was contested on behalf of defendant No.1 (now respondent No.3) raising various preliminary objections. It was submitted on behalf of defendant No.1 that FCI was the actual purchaser of the food grains and defendant No.1 was acting only as a Commission Agent, who had made the purchase on behalf of defendant No.2 -HAFED (i.e. the appellant). Entries of purchase were duly made in the account books. The total value of wheat was Rs.39,95,600, however, on receipt of intimation regarding shortage of wheat from the FCI, an enquiry was conducted and on verification it was found that there was a shortage of 12.05 quintals of wheat costing Rs.26,992. The HAFED has deducted the aforesaid amount from defendant No.1 and thus, the plaintiffs were not entitled to the aforesaid amount from defendant No.1 being the amount for shortage of wheat. Defendant No.2/appellant filed a separate written statement stating that HAFED had not purchased any wheat and defendant No.2 was only responsible for the quality of wheat. Details of the purchase were not admitted. It was further stated that the purchases were made by defendant No.2 through defendant No.1 for the FCI but no payment was made by defendant No.2 to the plaintiff. All other averments were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. Both the parties adduced their respective evidence. The trial Court after going through the evidence and hearing learned counsel for the parties, decreed the suit for recovery of Rs.41,000 along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of the suit till its recovery vide judgment and decree dated 19.11.2010.
(2.) FEELING aggrieved against the aforesaid judgment and decree of the trial Court, defendant No.2 (i.e. the appellant) filed an appeal, which was also dismissed by the first appellate Court vide its judgment and decree dated 03.08.2013. Still not satisfied, defendant No.2 has filed the instant appeal submitting that the amount was rightly deducted by defendant No.1/respondent No.3 on account of short supply as intimated by the FCI, which was the actual buyer of the wheat in question. Since the Cooperative Society/respondent No.3 was bound to send the wheat with appropriate weight to the appellant -HAFED, the amount was rightly deducted. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below. The defendants have failed to prove any loss at the hands of plaintiff -respondents. It is not the case of the defendants that food grains were supplied in less quantity. Admittedly, shortage of the food grains has been pointed out by the FCI, to whom delivery was sent by the defendants themselves after taking delivery from the plaintiff respondents, and therefore, no fault can be found with the findings recorded by the courts below.
(3.) THUS , no substantial question of law arises at all in this appeal. Dismissed.;