M/S Sport Syndicate & ORS v. M/S R.G. Shipping & Logistic Private Ltd & ANR

-1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision.26.07.2016 M/s Sports Syndicate and others .......Appellants Vs.

M/s R.G. Shipping and Logistic Pvt. Ltd. and another ........Respondents

Present:

Mr. Raman Sharma, Advocate for the appellants.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL 1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? -.- AMIT RAWAL J. (ORAL) C.M. No.9243-C of 2016 Application is allowed as prayed for.

Annexures P-1 and P-2 are taken on record.

RSA No.593 of 2016 The appellants-defendants are aggrieved of the decreeing of the suit seeking recovery of `1,10,807/- as principal amount including interest and dismissal of the counter claim having been set up. Mr. Raman Sharma, learned counsel for the appellantsdefendants submits that the respondent-plaintiff had instituted a suit against the appellants-defendants on the premise that the defendants engaged the services of the plaintiff for getting the consignment shipped to Ireland and this regard, bill of lading dated 12.06.2006 was issued by the plaintiff company through its billing authority sister concern M/s Dhanraj Intermodel

-2Transport Pvt. Ltd. The plaintiff stated to have issued the Bill No.0039 dated 17.04.2007 for a sum of `1,10,807/- as freight charges in respect of the consignment aforementioned, sent by the defendants to their buyer by invoice dated 2.6.2006, as the said shipment was on the CIF basis. He submits that in fact, suit instituted was based upon the falsehood as no amount is/was due against the answering respondents in respect of the aforementioned consignment, as the plaintiff had received `56,590/- in excess from the defendants for which a counter claim had been filed. The factum of availing of service is a matter of record. The plaintiff had been dealing with the defendants for last several years.

The statement of accounts between the parties would reveal that `56,590/- has been paid in excess to the plaintiff and when the plaintiff-company was asked to pay the same, it failed to do so. It is evident from Annexure P-2 (Ex.DW1/A) annexed with the misc. application that payment of entire goods had been settled and freight charges had been paid to the respondent-plaintiff and the statement of account clearly revealed that there existed number of transactions w.e.f. 01.04.2006 to 22.02.2007. This aspect has not been taken into consideration by the Courts below in decreeing the suit and dismissing the counter claim, thus, urges this Court for setting aside the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below by formulating the substantial questions of law drawn in the memorandum of appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellants-defendants, appraised the paper book and of the view that there is no merit and substance in the submissions of Mr. Raman Sharma, for, the respondentsplaintiffs have proved their case through documentary and oral evidence.

-3plaintiffs for shipping their goods and raised bill of `1,10,807/- as freight charges. DW1-Ajay Dogra admitted in his cross-examination business dealing and invoice No.39 of plaintiff and as well as acknowledged the reaching of the consignment at its destination. Ex.P4, the statement of account for the defendants from the year 01.04.2007 to 31.03.2008, proved an outstanding amount of `1,10,807/-. As regards the counter claim, the defendants, in my view, have failed to prove the alleged amount of `56,590/- to be outstanding. As per the document Ex.P3, there are entries of money transactions. The amount paid by the AppellantsDefendants/counter claimants, as per the statement of account, pertains to the prior in time. Transactions were of 01.06.2006, 6.6.2006 and 8.7.2006.

In fact, the appellants-defendants, have not been able to connect the payment of excess amount with these transactions. In my view, the findings rendered by both the Courts below are based on correct appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence, even awarding of 9% interest per annum from the date of filing the suit till date of decree and future interest @6% per annum from the date of decree till the date of realization is also in consonance with the settled law. No ground is made out for interference, much less, no substantial question of law arises for consideration in the second appeal. The second appeal is dismissed.