- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:643 RSA No. 5777 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5778 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.5777 OF 2013 (MON) C/W REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.5778 OF 2013 (MON) IN RSA NO.5777 OF 2013 BETWEEN: VIJAYANAND ROADLINES LIMITED, (NOW CALLED VRL LOGISTICS LIMITED) CORPORATE OFFICE: GIRIRAJ ANNEXE, CIRCUIT HOUSE ROAD, HUBLI-580029, REGD. OFFICE AT NH4, BANGALORE ROAD, VARUR, HUBLI-581207, REPRESEBTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR BY GPA HOLDER SHRI R.B.GADAGKAR. …APPELLANT (BY SRI HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE.) AND: 1. M/S. SHRI SAI KRISHI KENDRA, GANDHI GANJ, BIDAR-585401, BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI MADIWALAPPA S/O. VEERASHETTY GANGASHETTY, AGE: 43 YEARS, RESIDENT OF GANDHI GANJ, BIDAR-585401. 2. M/S. EMERGENT GENETICS INDIA PVT. LTD., C/O. M/S. B.P.INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., SURVEY NO.479/481, PUDUDAR VILLAGE, NEAR MUNEERABAD, MANDAL: MEDCHAL, Digitally signed by MALLIKARJUN RUDRAYYA KALMATH Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:643 RSA No. 5777 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5778 of 2013 DIST: RANGA REDDY, ANDHRA PRADESH, BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. M/S. MONSANTO INDIA PVT. LTD., NO.26, HIREMATH BUILDING, JAYANAGAR, VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI-580021. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ANAND D. BAGEWADI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED; NOTICE TO R3 HELD SUFFICIENT.) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN O.S.NO.348/2007 DATED 16.04.2008 ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI AND TO DISMISS THE SUIT AND ALSO TO ALLOW THE REGULAR APPEAL NO.73/2008 BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.07.2013 ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, SITTING AT HUBBALLI, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IN RSA NO.5778 OF 2013 BETWEEN: VIJAYANAND ROADLINES LIMITED, (NOW CALLED VRL LOGISTICS LIMITED) CORPORATE OFFICE: GIRIRAJ ANNEXE, CIRCUIT HOUSE ROAD, HUBLI-580029, REGD. OFFICE AT: NH4, BANGALORE ROAD, VARUR, HUBLI-581207, REPRESEBTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR BY GPA HOLDER SHRI R.B.GADAGKAR. …APPELLANT (BY SRI HANUMANTHAREDDY SAHUKAR, ADVOCATE.) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:643 RSA No. 5777 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5778 of 2013 AND: 1. M/S. SHRI SAI KRISHI KENDRA, GANDHI GANJ, BIDAR-585401, BY ITS PROPRIETOR SRI MADIWALAPPA S/O. VEERASHETTY GANGASHETTY, AGE: 43 YEARS, RESIDENT OF GANDHI GANJ, BIDAR-585401. 2. M/S. EMERGENT GENETICS INDIA PVT. LTD., C/O. M/S. B.P. INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD., SURVEY NO.479/481, PUDUDAR VILLAGE, NEAR MUNEERABAD, MANDAL: MEDCHAL, DIST: RANGA REDDY, ANDHRA PRADESH, BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. 3. M/S. MONSANTO INDIA PVT. LTD., NO.26, HIREMATH BUILDING, JAYANAGAR, VIDYANAGAR, HUBLI-580021. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ANAND D. BAGEWADI, ADVOCATE. FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 SERVED; NOTICE TO R3 HELD SUFFICIENT.) THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE IN O.S.NO.348/2007 DATED 16.04.2008, ON THE FILE OF PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, HUBBALLI AND TO DISMISS THE SUIT AND ALSO TO DISMISS THE REGULAR APPEAL NO.86/2008 BY SETTING ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 18.07.2013, ON THE FILE OF I ADDITIONAL DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, DHARWAD, SITTING AT HUBBALLI, BY ALLOWING THIS APPEAL WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THESE APPEALS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:643 RSA No. 5777 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5778 of 2013 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) Though the appeal is listed for admission, the same is taken up for disposal with consent of both the sides as the same is heard on merits of the case. 2. Defendant No.2 has filed these two appeals being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2013, passed in R.A.No.73/2008 and R.A.No.86/2008, by the Court of I Additional District and Sessions Judge, Dharwad, sitting at Hubballi, thereby the judgment and decree dated 16.04.2008, passed in O.S.No.348/2007, by the Principal Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Hubballi, is modified only to the effect of setting aside direction to the plaintiff to return 296 cotton seeds packets. 3. For the purpose of convenience and easy reference, ranking of the parties is referred to as per their status before the trial Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:643 RSA No. 5777 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5778 of 2013 4. The plaintiff has averred in the plaint that he is an authorized distributor of various seeds manufactured by defendant No.1 for Bidar District and there was a practice of defendant No.1 consigning the seeds packets to the plaintiff for sale and on receipt of the such materials, the plaintiff used to sell the same to the customers and to repay the amount to defendant No.1 and in case if any seeds packets are unsold, the same used to be returned to defendant No.1. 5. Further it is pleaded that, the plaintiff has received 1,000 packets in the month of May 2005 and 704 seeds packets were sold and 296 seeds packets were remain unsold, which are worth of ₹1,42,376/- and therefore as usual practice the said 296 cotton seeds packets were to be transported to defendant No.1 and accordingly the plaintiff hired service of defendant No.2 transport agency to transport the said 296 bags to defendant No.1 by booking and payment of freight charges on 29.12.2005. But the said bags remained in the godown - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:643 RSA No. 5777 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5778 of 2013 of defendant No.2 till 07.04.2006 and therefore, they were damaged. Hence, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money of ₹1,42,376/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. 6. The defendants have filed the written statement denying all the pleadings in the plaint. It is sum and substance of written statement of defendant No.1 that the seeds ought to have been sent immediately, but without doing so, after lapse of 3-4 months, in the rainy season, the seeds are damaged. Therefore, defendant No.1 is not liable to pay damages to the plaintiff. 7. The defendant No.2 being a transport agency has stated that when the plaintiff has booked transportation on 29.12.2005, the seeds packets were in damaged condition. Therefore, they issued notice to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff himself is responsible for the damages caused by defendant No.2. Therefore, defendant No.2 is not liable to pay damages. Thus, the defendants pray for dismissal of the suit. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:643 RSA No. 5777 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5778 of 2013 8. The Trial Court, after recording evidence and hearing the arguments of both the sides, decreed the suit as against defendant No.2 only and dismissed the suit against defendants No.1 and 3. The Trial Court has decreed the suit directing defendant No.2, to return 296 cotton seeds packets to defendant No.2 and in turn defendant No.2 shall pay damages of ₹1,42,376/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum to the plaintiff. 9. Being aggrieved by this, defendant No.2 has preferred R.A.No.73/2008 and the plaintiff has preferred R.A.No.86/2008. The First Appellate Court has dismissed R.A.No.73/008 filed by defendant No.2 and R.A.No.86/2008 filed by the plaintiff is allowed and so far as the finding that the plaintiff to return 296 cotton seeds packets to defendant No.2 was set aside and the remaining findings is confirmed. 10. Being agreed by the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, defendant No.2 has preferred these two appeals as stated above. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:643 RSA No. 5777 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5778 of 2013 11. Learned counsel for defendant No.2 has submitted that the plaintiff has booked defendant No.2 transport agency for transportation of 296 cotton seeds packets, but the packets were in damaged condition, which is endorsed in Ex.P.7. Therefore, defendant No.2 has issued legal notice to the plaintiff to take back the packets. But the plaintiff has not taken back the packets. Therefore, resulting into the plaintiff himself is responsible for the damage caused, but not the 2nd defendant. Therefore, it is not appreciated by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court correctly. Hence, prays to make interference with the judgment and decree passed by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff submitted that on 29.12.2005 he has paid fright charges for consigning 296 cotton seeds packets by engaging defendant No.2 transport agency for transportation of the seeds packets to defendant No.1. But defendant No.2 without transporting the bags, has kept - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:643 RSA No. 5777 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5778 of 2013 itself in its godown till 07.04.2006. Therefore, defendant No.2 had not transported the said packets to defendant No.1. Thus, defendant No.2 himself is responsible for causing damages by keeping the goods idle in its godown. Therefore, it is correctly appreciated by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Hence, justified the order passed by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. 13. Upon considering the admitted facts that the plaintiff has booked defendant No.2 transport agency for transportation of 296 cotton seeds packets to defendant No.1 in Andhra Pradesh, Ex.P.6 is the invoice of booking defendant No.2 transport agency for transporting 296 bags to defendant No.1. But, it is the case of defendant No.2 that when 12 bags were received, out of them, 3 bags were in damaged condition. Therefore, it is explanation of defendant No.2 that when the plaintiff has booked and paid freight charge of transportation, already the said packets were in a damaged condition. Therefore, contended that defendant No.2 is not responsible for damage of the seeds. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:643 RSA No. 5777 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5778 of 2013 14. If this being so, if the goods intended to be sent by plaintiff through defendant No.2 transport agency, the 2nd defendant immediately would have refused to receive damaged goods and instead received the goods with a promise to transport the same to defendant No.1. Admittedly, the goods were remained idle and kept in the godown of defendant No.2 till 07.04.2006. The 2nd defendant has not transported the said goods to defendant No.1. Therefore, there is a force found in the defence of plaintiff that since the said packets were kept idle in the godown for nearly five months, therefore there are chances of damage to the cotton seeds, as cotton seeds are perishable in nature. Therefore, the First Appellate Court is justified in directing for payment to the plaintiff. But the question is, at whose instance the cotton seeds were got damaged? The 2nd defendant without transporting the same to defendant No.1 for five months, has kept itself in its godown without making delivery of the same. The cotton seeds are perishable in nature. Therefore, keeping it idle in - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:643 RSA No. 5777 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5778 of 2013 the godown for five months attracts damage to the cotton seeds as they were in the process of rottening. Therefore, the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court are justified in holding that defendant No.2 is responsible for causing damages to the plaintiff. 15. Further, the First Appellate Court is justified in setting aside the direction to the plaintiff to return 296 bags to defendant No.2 since the cotton seeds are perishable in nature and it is not compensatory for defendant No.2 to receive 296 cotton seeds bags and pay damages to the plaintiff. Therefore, setting aside the direction issued by the Trial Court to return 296 packets of cotton seeds is found to be justifiable. Therefore, on the finding of fact made by both the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court concurrently is based on evidence and therefore, there is no perversity found in the order and much less having no substantial question of law involved. Therefore, the appeals are liable to be dismissed at the stage of admission itself. - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC-D:643 RSA No. 5777 of 2013 C/W RSA No. 5778 of 2013 16. So far as damages is concerned it is confirmed, but need to make interference as far as order of interest is concerned. The Trial Court has awarded interest at the rate of 12% p.a. It is reduced to 8% p.a. Therefore, both the appeals are allowed in part as far as rate of interest is concerned. 17. In view of disposal of the appeals, pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of as they do not survive for consideration. 18. No order as to costs. Sd/- (HANCHATE SANJEEVKUMAR) JUDGE MRK CT-AN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 49