JUDGMENT
A.B. Pal, J.
1. The Food Corporation of India and two others have filed this second appeal against the judgment and order dated 28.09.2005 passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate (J), Aizawl in RFA No. 21 of 2004 whereby the judgment and decree passed by the Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, Aizawl in Money Suit No. 15 of 2000 have been affirmed. According to the said decree, the appellant herein is liable to pay to the plaintiff/respondent herein an amount of Rs. 1,51,682.50 paise within a period of thirty days from 20.07.2004, failing which the amount would carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum.
2. The material facts giving rise to the said proceeding may be noticed thus:
B. Purbanchal Road Services (P) Ltd. (herein after referred as Contractor), the first respondent is a registered company and was appointed by the Food Corporation of India (for short Corporation) for carrying food grains from Guwahati to Kalasib for the period from 1997-1999. An agreement was entered into between the parties in terms whereof the carrying Contractor deposited an amount of Rs. 30,00,000/- (rupees thirty lakhs) as security. During the said period the Contractor carried food grains of viz., different varieties of rice and wheat without any complaint from the Corporation. On 25.04.98 a truck of the contractor carried 178.45 qts. of rice but the bill raised by the contractor for carrying the said commodity was not paid by the Corporation on the ground that the variety of rice received at Guwahati was not the same received at Kalasib. The quality being inferior, the Contractor was held by the Corporation liable to pay certain amount as penalty which was deducted from the running bills. After the contract period was over and the Contractor completed the contract work the entire security deposit of thirty lakhs was paid to the Contrator by the Corporation. At that time the Contractor executed a no-demand certificate, (Exhibit-D-14) stating that he had no claim what-so-ever against the Corporation in connection which or arising out of the said contract. Thereafter, the Contractor instituted the Money Suit for recovery of the penalty amount of Rs. 1,51,682,50 paise from the Corporation.
3. After a full dressed trial, the learned Trial Court found that the appellant Corporation was liable to pay to the Contractor a sum of Rs. 1,51,682,50 paise and the decree passed for the said amount came to be up-held by the appellate Court. The learned Counsel for the parties have admitted that there is no discussions on the vital document marked as Exhibit D-14 which is a no demand certificate executed by the plaintiff Contractor. The question which the Courts below did not answer is how after such no-demand certificate the plaintiff-Contractor could legally file the suit demanding refund of the penalty he paid without objection.
4. In view of the above and as agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties, it has to be held that by ignoring the no-demand certificate of the plaintiff-Contractor-which is a vital document- the Courts below, while decreeing the suit, have committed serious error which has caused failure of justice. Non-consideration of such a document while passing the decree being substantial question of law this Court has jurisdiction to interfere with the findings of the Courts below. Accordingly, this second appeal is allowed. The judgment and the decree are set aside and quashed. The case is remitted back to the learned Trial Court who shall proceed with Money suit on the basis of the materials on record and deliver a judgment after appreciating all evidence with special reference to the no-demand certificate executed by the plaintiff-respondent herein. No cost.