SANGEET LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 20.10.1987 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, No. 1, Udaipur in Civil Suit No. 41/1983, whereby the suit preferred by the plaintiff -respondent against the defendant -appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 15,968/ - has been decreed to the extent of Rs. 13,575/ -. The plaintiff has also been held entitled for interest on principal amount Rs. 11,075/ - @ 6% from the date of the filing of the suit till the recovery thereof.
(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the defendant -appellant M/s. Rajasthan Small Industries Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'the defendant Corporation'), a government of Rajasthan concern, used to organise exhibition cum sale in the various parts of the country of the handicraft products manufactured by small industries in the State. The plaintiff, a manufacturer of inter -alia wooden hadicraft articles was permitted to keep its product i.e. wooden articles on consignment basis at Rajasthan Handicrafts Emporium, New Delhi, Jaipur, Calcutta, Bombay, Mt. Abu, Agra, Udaipur and also at the counter in J and K Government Emporium, Srinagar for sale on payment of commission @ 15% on the net sales. However, the rate of commission on the sales at Srinagar counter was fixed @ 25% on the net sales. In the year 1977, the plaintiff sent the wooden toys worth Rs. 13,025/ - for sale on consignment basis to be kept in the exhibitions organized by Rajasthan Handicraft Emporium, Bombay, a unit of the defendant Corporation. The details of the goods sent vide various invoices have been set out by the plaintiff in para No. 4 of the plaint. According to the plaintiff, on the sale of the goods the defendant Corporation was required to remit the payment after deduction of commission @ 15% as agreed upon and the unsold goods were required to be returned. However, neither the amount received on sale of goods was remitted, nor the goods remained unsold were returned by the defendant Corporation to the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the plaintiff preferred a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 11,075/ -, the amount arrived at after deducting 15% commission from the value of the goods a sum of Rs. 13,025/ -. The plaintiff also claimed interest @ 12% quantified at Rs. 3,993/ - for a period of three years. The plaintiff also claimed travelling expenses a sum of Rs. 800/ - incurred on account of travelling undertaken by its representative for the recovery of the amount and so also the postal expenses a sum of Rs. 100/ -. Thus, the plaintiff prayed for a decree against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 15,968/ -.
(3.) THE suit preferred was contested by the defendant Corporation by filing a written statement. It was averred on behalf of the defendant Corporation that the goods as alleged by the plaintiff were never sent and handed over to it. The plaintiff was only permitted to keep its goods at the counter for sale at the places enumerated in communication dated 4th November, 1977 issued by the Managing Director of the defendant Corporation. It was further alleged by the defendant Corporation that the goods belonging to the plaintiff worth Rs. 5,501.95 were sold in the exhibition organized at the Bombay counter of the Corporation. It was alleged that the Corporation incurred the expenditure towards the rent Rs. 675/ -, discount Rs. 31.10, salary to the staff Rs. 608/ - and octroi duty Rs. 621/ -, besides, the corporation was also entitled for commission @ 15% quantified at Rs. 724.40 and thus, as against the sale proceeds of Rs. 5,501:95, the plaintiff was entitled for the payment of a sum of Rs. 2823.85 and out of that amount, a sum of Rs. 347.25 had already been paid to the plaintiff by cheque. Yet another cheque for Rs. 2000/ - dated 2.6.1979 was sent to the plaintiff but the same was not accepted by it. It was further averred that the goods which remained unsold were returned to the plaintiff vide voucher Nos. 2531, 2791 and 2792 vide G.T.R. No. 27093 dated 25.1.1979 which were not accepted by the plaintiff and the G.T. Rs. were sent back. However, on the repeated requests being made and the G.T.R. being sent again, the delivery of the goods were taken by the plaintiff. For the remaining goods, the plaintiff was requested to take the delivery but, he deliberately avoided to receive the same. According to the defendant Corporation the goods of the plaintiff were never purchased by the Corporation instead as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the plaintiff was required to keep the goods at the exhibition/emporium of the Corporation and sale the same through its own representatives. It is on the request of the plaintiff that a person was employed by the defendant Corporation for the sale of the goods at counter. The defendant Corporation averred that the goods unsold were returned to the plaintiff though, it was not its responsibility under the contract. Accordingly, it was prayed that the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief.;