Bangalore District Court
Sri.G.L.Prasad vs ) M/S.S.K.Medical And General Stores on 26 February, 2016
IN THE COURT OF THE XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE CITY: (CCH.18)
Dated this the 26th day of February, 2016.
Present
SMT.K.B.GEETHA, M.A., LL.B.,
XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY.
O.S.NO.8425/2014
PLAINTIFF: Sri.G.L.Prasad,
s/o Sambasiva Rao,
aged about 38 years,
Proprietor,
M/s.Satya Drug House,
No.98, Patnool Pet Street,
Gopal Mahal Building,
Bangalore-560 053.
(By Sri V.B.Shiva Kumar, Advocate)
-VS-
DEFENDANTS : 1) M/s.S.K.Medical and General Stores,
Panchayat Buildings, Hosur Main Road,
Chandrapura, Attibele Hobi,
Bangalore-560 081.
Represented by its Proprietor,
Sri.Suresh.
2) Sri.Suresh,
Proprietor,
M/s.S.K.Medical and General Stores,
Panchayat Building, Hosur Main Road,
Chandapura, Attibele Hobli,
Bangalore-560 081.
( D.1 & D.2 - Exparte)
2 O.S.No.8425/2014
Date of Institution of the suit : 5/11/2014
Nature of the Suit : Recovery of money
Date of commencement of recording
of evidence : 19/8/2015
Date on which the Judgment was
pronounced : 26/2/2016
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration : 01 03 21
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit against defendants for recovery of Rs.1,45,222/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization with court costs and for such other reliefs.
2) The case of plaintiff in nutshell is that plaintiff is the proprietor of M/s.Satya Drug House and registered pharmaceutical distributor. Defendants placed orders to plaintiff. They called upon the plaintiff to maintain the running account with plaintiff pertaining to the transactions they made. They were due a sum of Rs.1,45,222/- towards this running account. Hence, 3 O.S.No.8425/2014 plaintiff called upon them to pay the same and in this regard, defendants issued 10 cheques towards discharge of their liability from 26/11/2011 to 15/2/2012 and those cheques were dishonoured. Plaintiff issued legal notice dtd:18/6/2014 calling upon defendants to discharge their liability. Even after service of said notice, defendants have not paid the amount. There was a typographical error in said notice that the amount due is Rs.10,05,911/- instead of Rs.1,45,222/-. Plaintiff is entitled for interest at 21% p.a. Hence, the suit for appropriate reliefs.
3) Even after service of summons, defendants through RPAD, defendants have not appeared and hence, placed exparte.
[
4) On behalf of Plaintiff, plaintiff is examined as P.W.1, got marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.31 and closed his side.
5) Heard arguments of plaintiff's counsel.
6) From the above facts, the points that arise for consideration are:-
4 O.S.No.8425/2014
1) Whether the plaintiff proves that defendants are due a sum of Rs.1,45,222/- towards running account for purchase of medicine from plaintiff?
2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for suit claim?
3) What order or decree?
7) Findings of this court on the above points are:-
Point No.1: - Partly in Affirmative; Point No.2: - Partly in Affirmative; Point No.3: - As per final order for the following:-
REASONS
8) Point No.1:- It is the case of plaintiff that he is the proprietor of M/s.Satya Drug House and registered pharmaceutical distributor. Defendants placed orders to plaintiff and they have running account with the plaintiff pertaining to the transaction they made. They are due a sum of Rs.1,45,222/- towards running account for purchase of medicine from plaintiff.5 O.S.No.8425/2014
9) To substantiate the above contention of plaintiff, plaintiff has produced 5 invoices as per Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 for a sum of Rs.27,774/-, RS.12,752/-, Rs.6,587/-, Rs.24,706/-, and Rs.24,460/- totally amounting to Rs.96,279/-. Plaintiff has also produced 9 cheques issued by defendant No.2 as proprietor of defendant No.1 as per Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.14 and bank endorsements as per Ex.P.15 to Ex.P.23 that all the above said cheques were dishonoured for insufficient funds. Plaintiff has also produced the Audited financial statement as per Ex.P.24 that the amount due from defendants is Rs.1,36,700/- as per audited financial statements as at 31/3/2014. He has produced VAT Registration certificate as per Ex.P.28 to show that Leela Prasad Gurram is the proprietor of Satya Drug House. Plaintiff's name in the suit is G.L.Prasad.
Hence to show that his name is Gurram Leela Prasad, he has produced his Pan Card as per Ex.P.21. Plaintiff has produced ledger account extract as per Ex.P.29, certificates required under S.65-B of the Evidence Act pertaining to this account. According to this ledger account 6 O.S.No.8425/2014 extract, the amount due from defendants is Rs.1,36,700/- as on 31/3/2013. The total amount of cheques is Rs.1,50,222/-.
10) The total amount of invoice is Rs.96,279/-. As already stated above, the account of defendants is running account and thus, the amount due under ledger account extract is more than the total amount shown in invoices. As per ledger account extract, defendants have made some payments up to 15/11/2012. Hence, suit filed in the year 2014 is well within limitation.
11) After making payments, the amount due is only Rs.1,36,700/-. There is no document to show that after 16.11.2012, defendants have purchased some other medicines from plaintiff. The plaintiff is not claiming the interest amount up to the date of suit. Hence, the documents produced by plaintiff reveals that the total amount due from defendant is Rs.1,36,700/- towards the goods supplied by plaintiff to defendants and not Rs.1,45,222/- as claimed by plaintiff. Even the amount 7 O.S.No.8425/2014 claimed by plaintiff in legal notice is not proper as per his own contentions. Any way after receipt of this legal notice or after receipt of suit summons, defendants have not appeared and not contested the suit. Hence, on perusal of all the above said documents, this court holds that the amount due from defendants to plaintiff is Rs.1,36,700/-. Plaintiff is entitled for the said amount from defendants. There is no reason to disbelieve the documents produced by plaintiff, as defendants have not contested the suit and not disputed these documents. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered partly in affirmative.
12) Point No.2:- Though plaintiff claims interest at 18% p.a., he is entitled for interest at 10% p.a. on the decrial amount from the date of suit till realization as if plaintiff had keeps this amount in any of the nationalized banks, he would get atleast 10% interest. Accordingly, point No.2 is answered partly in affirmative. 8 O.S.No.8425/2014
13) Point No.3:- In view of finding on point Nos.1 & 2, this court proceeds to pass the following:-
ORDER The suit is partly decreed with costs against defendants for a sum of Rs.1,36,700/- with current and future interest at 10% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected by me in computer and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 26th day of February, 2016).
(K.B.GEETHA) XIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.
ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
P.W.1 - G.L.Prasad
(b) Defendants' side : N I L II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a) Plaintiff's side :
Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5 5 Invoices
Ex.P.6 to Ex.P.14 9 dishonoured cheques issued
by defendants
9 O.S.No.8425/2014
Ex.P.15 to Ex.P.23 9 bank endorsements Ex.P.24 Certificate issued by auditor Ex.P.25 Office copy of legal notice Ex.P.26 & Ex.P.27 2 postal acknowledgments Ex.P.28 VAT Certificate Ex.P.29 Ledger account extract Ex.P.30 Certificate u/s 65-B of Evidence Act Ex.P.31 Pan card
(b) Defendants' side : - Nil -
XIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.
GVU/-