Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 352 (GAU)

Devendra Kumar Sethia S/o Shri Badarmal Sethia v. Interglobe Aviation Ltd.

2025-03-03

MALASRI NANDI

body2025
JUDGMENT : MALASRI NANDI, J. Heard Mr. H. Maurya, learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents. 2. The appellant being the plaintiff in Money Suit No. 15/2009 has preferred this appeal u/s 96 R/W Order 41 Rule 1 and Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code against the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.03.2015, passed by the learned Civil Judge No.3, Kamrup (M), Guwahati whereby the suit against the defendant no.1 i.e. Interglobe Aviation Ltd. i.e. Indigo was dismissed. 3. The brief fact of the case is that the appellant is a businessman carrying on various businesses including Cargo handling at Airports in the name and style of his proprietary concern “The Door Chester”. The respondent no.1 is an Airlines Company namely Interglobe Aviation Ltd. The proforma respondent no.3 is a partnership firm namely “Star Consortium” constituted with its partners who are the proforma respondent nos.3 to 5 in this appeal. 4. The proforma respondent no.2 was allotted with a work order by the respondent no.1 for cargo handling at Guwahati and Kolkata Airports. The proforma respondent no.2 thereafter, engaged the appellant to perform the job of cargo handling at Guwahati Airport on mutual understanding vide E-mails dated 13.02.2007 and furnished the pictures, model, design etc. of the tractor, truck etc. as well as the colour and the texts/words to be used on the tractor and the truck etc. for cargo handling for the services of the respondent no.1 and thereby directed the appellant to make ready the tractor, truck (cargo van) etc. for their use for cargo handling and also asked the appellant to get ready 9 (nine) nos. of trolleys for their engagement for cargo handling and verbally prescribed the designs of the trolleys. 5. Accordingly, the appellant made the tractor, truck (cargo van) and trolleys etc. ready for their engagement for cargo handling works at Guwahati Airport. The proforma respondent no.2 through its authorized signatory, and in consultation with the appellant, applied for and obtained entry passes for 6 (six) nos. of trolleys. The rest three trolleys were placed outside Airport for carriage of goods from Airport to Godown of respondent no.1. The proforma respondent no.2, thereafter, with consultation with the appellant employed 12 persons to undertake cargo handling works at Guwahati Airport. 6. of trolleys. The rest three trolleys were placed outside Airport for carriage of goods from Airport to Godown of respondent no.1. The proforma respondent no.2, thereafter, with consultation with the appellant employed 12 persons to undertake cargo handling works at Guwahati Airport. 6. As per the mutual terms agreed upon between the appellant and proforma respondent no.2, the salaries of the persons employed for cargo handling were required to be paid by the proforma respondent no.2 but necessary costs and expenses in connection with fuel, lubricants, grease for plying the tractor, truck etc. payable to the Airport Authorities for the tractor, truck and trolleys etc. and other day to day expenses in connection with cargo handling was payable by the appellant. It was further agreed that the appellant shall be entitled to a gross remuneration of Rs.2,000/- only from the proforma respondents per day per flight per sector. Thereafter, vide letter dated 09.04.2006, the proforma respondent no.2 sent 11 drafts to the appellant for salaries of staff for March, 2007. 7. The appellant commenced cargo handling business on behalf of the proforma respondent no.2 in the service of the respondent no.1 at Guwahati Airport w.e.f. 27.02.2007 and continued up to 28.12.2007. After completion of 1 (one) month 2 (two) days of cargo handling works, the appellant submitted his two nos. of cargo handling bills dated 28.02.2007 and 31.03.2007, amounting to Rs. 1,61,507/-. The proforma respondent no.2 vide letter 16.04.2007, acknowledged the receipt of the appellant’s bills and assured to pay the same shortly. Vide the aforesaid letter, the proforma respondent no.2 also asked the appellant to submit the bills for the month of April, 2007 and onwards directly to the respondent no.1. Accordingly, the appellant continued the cargo handling services at Guwahati Airport and submitted the cargo handling bills to the respondent no.1 from time to time for the period from 01.04.2007 to 30.11.2007. However, in spite of receipt of such bills, the same were not paid. Thereafter, suddenly on 28.12.2007, the respondent no.1 asked the appellant for not to continue the cargo handling further, on the plea that the contract of the proforma respondent no.2 for the cargo handling has been terminated. The respondent no.1, on 28.12.2007 itself, also returned the appellant’s tractor, cargo van i.e. truck and 3 nos. of trolleys to the appellant. 8. Thereafter, suddenly on 28.12.2007, the respondent no.1 asked the appellant for not to continue the cargo handling further, on the plea that the contract of the proforma respondent no.2 for the cargo handling has been terminated. The respondent no.1, on 28.12.2007 itself, also returned the appellant’s tractor, cargo van i.e. truck and 3 nos. of trolleys to the appellant. 8. At the time of return of the said vehicles and three trolleys, the appellant reminded the Manager of the respondent no.1 that 9 (nine) nos. of trolleys were utilized in the service of the respondent no.1, which were provided by the appellant on behalf of the proforma respondent no.2. Out of which, 6 (six) trolleys were engaged inside the Airport and 3 (three) nos. of trolleys were engaged outside the Airport but only 3 (three) nos. of trolleys which were engaged outside the Airport were returned, as such the appellant requested the Manager of the respondent no.1 to return the rest 6 (six) nos. of trolleys also. But instead of returning the said 6 (six) trolleys, the Manager of respondent no.1 stated that they are in need of the said 6 (six) trolleys and the appellant may deem that the respondent no.1 has purchased the same and the respondent no.1 is ready to pay the price of the 6 (six) trolleys to the appellant and asked the appellant to intimate the price of the 6 (six) nos. of trolleys. 9. Accordingly, the appellant on 28.12.2007 itself intimated about the discontinuation of the cargo handling business at the Guwahati Airport over telephone to the proforma respondents and also intimated about non- receipt of any amount of bills from the respondent no.1 as well as keeping and retaining of the 6 nos. of trolleys of the appellant by the respondent no.1. The appellant also reminded the proforma respondents that they have not paid the cargo handling bills for the period from 27.02.2007 to 28.02.2007 and for the period from 01.03.2007 to 31.03.2007 and thereby requested the proforma respondents to pay the said bills at the earliest. The proforma respondents also confirmed that their cargo handling contract has been terminated and asked the appellant to submit the copy of the bills to the respondent no.1 once again and also advised the appellant to submit one separate bill before the respondent no.1 against the price of the unreturned 6 nos. of trolleys. The proforma respondents also confirmed that their cargo handling contract has been terminated and asked the appellant to submit the copy of the bills to the respondent no.1 once again and also advised the appellant to submit one separate bill before the respondent no.1 against the price of the unreturned 6 nos. of trolleys. Accordingly, the appellant submitted the bills for cargo handling works and a separate bill for Rs.2,10,000/- being the price of 6 nos. of unreturned trolleys. Thus, the appellant claimed and demanded altogether a sum of Rs.15,41,275/- from the respondent no.1 but in spite of several request the money was not paid to the appellant. Hence, the appellant instituted the Money Suit No.15/2009. 10. The respondent and proforma respondents duly contested the suit by filing their written statements and also cross-examined the appellant. The respondent no.1 also adduced evidence and he was cross-examined. The proforma respondents although submitted evidence-on-affidavit but did not appear for cross-examination. Thereafter, the learned trial court vide judgment and decree dated 30.03.2015 dismissed the suit against the respondent no.1 by holding that there was no privity of contract between the appellant and the respondent no.1. However, the suit is decreed against the proforma respondents. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the impugned judgment and decree dated 30.03.2015, so far it relates to the dismissal for the suit against the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 is bad in law and while deciding the issue no.2, the learned trial court erroneously hold that there was no cause of action against the respondent no.1/defendant no.1. 12. It is further contended that since the appellant had provided cargo handling services for the respondent no.1 and bills for the period of 01.04.2007 up to the termination of the cargo handling services were submitted before the respondent no.1 and they duly received without any objection and at the time of the termination of the cargo handling contract, the vehicles trolleys etc. were returned by the respondent no.1 to the appellant, which itself amounts to implied contractual relationship between the appellant and the respondent no.1. 13. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has failed to consider the Exhibit No.25 issued by the respondent no.1/defendant no.1, while returning the vehicle i.e. tractor, cargo van, trolleys etc. were returned by the respondent no.1 to the appellant, which itself amounts to implied contractual relationship between the appellant and the respondent no.1. 13. It is further submitted that the learned trial court has failed to consider the Exhibit No.25 issued by the respondent no.1/defendant no.1, while returning the vehicle i.e. tractor, cargo van, trolleys etc. which were used in Indigo Cargo through the proforma respondents to the appellant/plaintiff and which is not denied by the respondents, which definitely gives birth to the cause of action against the respondent no.1/defendant no.1. 14. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court has failed to consider the Exhibit Nos. 17 to 24, 26 and 27 which are the bills issued by the appellant/plaintiff and received by the respondent no.1/defendant no.1, relating to cargo handling and which were not denied by the defendant no.1 on the ground of non-existence of privity of contract. Similarly, Exhibit Nos. 37 and 38, which are also the bills for trolleys issued by the appellant/plaintiff and received by the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 have also been overlooked while deciding the issue no.2. The above documents disclosed the cause of action against the respondents/defendant no.1. Hence, the findings arrived at by the trial court is erroneous and perverse, which is liable to be set aside. 15. None appears for the respondents to argue the matter. However, the written statement on behalf of the respondent/defendant no.1 is available in the record wherein it is stated that the appellant/plaintiff has no contractual or any other relation with the defendant no.1 and the said defendant has solely entered into agreement with the defendant no.2 i.e. M/s. Star Consortium for providing cargo services to the defendant no.1. The agreement was entered into between the defendant nos.1 and 2 in terms of two work orders dated 05.02.2007, whereby the defendant no.2 was contractually obliged to provide certain equipment and cargo services to the defendant no.1 at Guwahati Airport. Reciprocally, the defendant no.1 was to make payments to the defendant no.2 which was also stipulated in the said orders. No other agreement of contract, express or implied, has been entered into between the said defendants or between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 for providing cargo services and the material to the defendant no.1 at Guwahati Airport. 16. Reciprocally, the defendant no.1 was to make payments to the defendant no.2 which was also stipulated in the said orders. No other agreement of contract, express or implied, has been entered into between the said defendants or between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 for providing cargo services and the material to the defendant no.1 at Guwahati Airport. 16. It is also stated in the written statement that in terms of the aforesaid agreement, certain services and materials were provided by the defendant no.2 and against which, invoices were periodically raised by the defendant no.2 and submitted before the defendant no.1. Accordingly, the said invoices have been duly paid by the defendant no.1 and there is no liability to be discharged by defendant no.1 towards the defendant no.2. 17. It was alleged in the written statement submitted by the defendant no.1 that the defendant no.2 on his own will and volition and without prior consent or knowledge of the defendant no.1, outsourced the cargo services to be provided to the defendant no.1 under the aforesaid work orders to the plaintiff. However, the same does not establish any independent contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant no.1 and does not make the defendant no.1 liable for any services provided by the plaintiff. 18. I have considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant. I have also perused the trial court record including the judgment vide Money Suit No. 15/2009. 19. As per judgment of the trial court, the suit was dismissed against the defendant/respondent no.1 as there was no privity of contract between the appellant/plaintiff and defendant/respondent no.1 and the suit was decreed against the other defendants with a direction to recover a sum of Rs.17,02,782/- from the defendant nos.2 to 5 jointly and severally. 20. Through this appeal, the appellant has prayed to set aside the impugned judgment and decree by holding the respondent/defendant no.1 to be individually and jointly liable for payment of the amount claimed by the appellant/ plaintiff in the suit. Now the question comes whether there was any contractual liability of the respondent/defendant no.1 to pay the amount as claimed by the appellant/plaintiff. 21. Admittedly, no contract was made between the appellant/plaintiff and respondent/defendant no.1 regarding cargo handling works in the Guwahati Airport. The agreement was made between the defendant no.1 and defendant no.2. Now the question comes whether there was any contractual liability of the respondent/defendant no.1 to pay the amount as claimed by the appellant/plaintiff. 21. Admittedly, no contract was made between the appellant/plaintiff and respondent/defendant no.1 regarding cargo handling works in the Guwahati Airport. The agreement was made between the defendant no.1 and defendant no.2. According to the appellant, Exhibits Nos.17 to 24, 26 and 27 i.e. the bills were submitted to the respondent/defendant no.1 which were received by the respondent no.1 without any objection. Further, Exhibit No.25 also shows about contractual relationship between the respondent no.1 and the appellant as the vehicles, cargo van, trolleys etc. were returned by the respondent no.1 directly to the appellant. However, the learned counsel for the appellant has admitted in his memo of appeal that a verbal contractual relationship existed between the respondent no.1 and the appellant. Under such backdrop, it can be said that the appellant has failed to produce any document that any such agreement was made between the appellant and the respondent no.1 for cargo handling works in Guwahati Airport. 22. In the case of Welldone Estate Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. , reported in 178 (2011) DLT 118 , it was observed as follows – “There was a privity of contract between the two petitioners and the respondent company. The doctrine of privity in the common law of contract provides that a contract cannot confer rights or impose obligations arising under it on any person or agent except the parties to it. Cheshire and Fifoot in the Law of Contract, Thirteenth Edition, have put the Doctrine of Privity of Contract as : “The Doctrine of privity, while in principle, at least it prevents a third party beneficiary from suing on a contract, operates with equal logic to forbid the contracting parties to enforce obligations against a stranger. It has long been an axiom of the common law that a contract between A and B cannot impose a liability upon C.” 23. The Doctrine of Privity of Contract has been explained in L. Shiv Dayal Kapoor and others Vs. Union of India , reported in AIR ( 1963) P&H 538 as under - “I may now consider the implications of the rule underlying the doctrine of privity of contract, which means the relationship subsisting between two contracting parties. The Doctrine of Privity of Contract has been explained in L. Shiv Dayal Kapoor and others Vs. Union of India , reported in AIR ( 1963) P&H 538 as under - “I may now consider the implications of the rule underlying the doctrine of privity of contract, which means the relationship subsisting between two contracting parties. “Privity” in this context implies a mutuality of will and is an interaction of parties and their successors. It creates a legal bond or tie or a vinculum juris. The rule of privity of contract is that no one but the parties to a contract can be bound by it or entitled finder it. In the words of Pollock, “A third person cannot become entitled by the contract itself to demand performance of any duty under the contract,” Salmond and Winfield put in thus – “No man can enforce a contract to which he is not a party, even though he has direct interest in the performance of it.” 24. In view of the aforesaid legal proposition and under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the trial court has rightly passed the judgment dismissing the case against the respondent no.1 by holding that as there was no privity of contract between the appellant and the respondent no.1, there was no liability of the respondent no.1 to pay anything to the appellant. 25. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs. 26. Transmit the trial court records.