Delhi District Court
Sh. Ashish Dass vs M/S Hansuttam Finance Ltd on 17 October, 2011
Suit No. 1015/2006
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHEFALI SHARMA: CIVIL JUDGE (WEST):
TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI
Suit No. 1015/2006
Sh. Ashish Dass
Propr. of M/S Askund Consultancy Services
R13/113, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad201002 (U.P.)
....................Plaintiff
Versus
M/S Hansuttam Finance Ltd.
H57, Connaught Circus,
New Delhi110001.
...........Defendant
Date of Institution : 07.11.2005
Date of Reservation : 01.10.2011
Date of Decision : 17.10.2011
E X - P A R T E J U D G E M E N T
This is a suit for recovery of sum of Rs. 35,596.50 filed on behalf plaintiff
against the defendant company. The facts, in brief, as averred in the plaint are as
follows:
1.That the plaintiff is proprietor of M/s Askud Consultancy Services having its office at R13/113, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad201002 (U.P.) and engaged in the business of Information Technology and renders various services including maintenance of computers, printers on Annual Maintenance Contract (AMC) basis, also provides development of Websites and Softwares, support mail system and is engaged in sale of computers.
Sh. Ashish Dass vs. M/S Hansuttam Finance Ltd. 1/7 Suit No. 1015/2006
2. That the defendant company is a limited company duly incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956, engaged the plaintiff for availing the following services on AMC (Annual Maintenance Contract) basis:
(i) AMC for Computers and Computer's peripherals dated 01.03.2004 for Rs. 29,500/ per annum.
(ii) AMC for Mail Management dated 23.01.2004 for Rs. 6,000/ per annum.
(iii) AMC for Website Management dated 16.12.2003 for Rs. 10,000/ per annum.
It is submitted that as per the agreed terms and condition, payments against the above stated AMC(s) were to be made on quarterly rest in respect of the contract AMC dated 01.03.2004 and on half yearly basis in respect of the AMC(s) contracts dated 23.01.2004 and 16.12.2003.
3. That the defendant company utilized services rendered by the plaintiff unequivocally and to its entire satisfaction. That defendant company issued satisfaction remarks on each and every visit of engineers of the plaintiff company for rendering the services envisaged as per the AMC(s) contracts, Satisfaction report which are also on record. That defendant company made payment for the first installment in respect of the above referred AMC(s) as per the agreed terms and conditions, however, payment of the remaining period during the tenure of the AMC(s), was delayed on the one pretext or the other, though the defendant company continued availing the services of the plaintiff.
4. That the plaintiff company raised bills/ invoices in respect of the services rendered and parts supplied by the plaintiff, however, defendant failed to make the payment of the remaining period of the contracts, despite repeated requests and demands.
Sh. Ashish Dass vs. M/S Hansuttam Finance Ltd. 2/7 Suit No. 1015/2006 Details of some of the bills raised by the plaintiff company are as follows: Sl. No Bill No. Date Amount 1 3 10/04/04 1,275/ 2 111 30.03.05 25,134/ 3 112 30.03.05 1,806/ 4 113 30.03.05 3,010/
5. That the defendant, though had been acknowledging the debt and its liability to pay the amount, however, despite promises, has failed to pay the amount due and outstanding. This constrained the plaintiff to send a legal notice dated 28.02.2005 to the defendant and eventually file the present suit thereby seeking a decree of Rs. 35,596.50 with pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the present suit till realization against the defendant.
6. Defendant has contested the present suit by filing written statement stating therein that the defendant entered in Nondisclosure Agreement dated 28th November, 2003 with the plaintiff company which was given effect on 16.12.2003 and both the parties duly agreed to abide by the terms and conditions as mentioned in the aforesaid Agreement. The plaintiff also assured the defendant for providing premium services to the satisfaction of the plaintiff, while contracting the said Agreement with the plaintiff. It was further agreed between the parties that the payment towards the services rendered by the plaintiff were to be paid on quarterly and halfyearly basis, which were duly complied and met with the terms of the agreement by the defendant, on and when the services were provided by the plaintiff. But the plaintiff started rendering Sh. Ashish Dass vs. M/S Hansuttam Finance Ltd. 3/7 Suit No. 1015/2006 unsatisfactory services to the defendant and that sometimes the services were not up to the mark as claimed by the plaintiff while entering into the said Agreement dated 28.11.2003. That the number of unsatisfactory services compelled the defendant to terminate the Maintenance Agreement/ Contract with the plaintiff which was duly informed to the plaintiff vide letter dated 01.06.2004. That vide demand letters dated 19th August, 7th October and 1st December, 2004 to the claiming some outstanding amount against the maintenance services provided by the plaintiff. That the defendant vide its letter dated 08.06.2005 informed the plaintiff regarding the no pendency of any such dues or bills. Hence present suit is liable to be dismissed.
7. The plaintiff had filed replication to the written statement of defendant wherein the plaintiff denied the averments made by the defendant in its written statement and reiterated and reaffirmed the contents of the plaint.
8. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues with respect to the main suit were framed by my Ld. Predecessor on 22.04.2008:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of Rs. 35,956.50 as prayed for? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest, if so, at what rate and for what period? OPP.
3. Whether the plaint not disclose any cause of action? OPD.
4. Relief.
9. The plaintiff, in order to prove his case, has examined only one witness i.e. Sh. Ashish Dass, Proprietor of M/s Askud Consultancy Services who was examined as PW1 and filed his evidence by way of affidavit which is exhibited as Ex. PW1/X. He relied Sh. Ashish Dass vs. M/S Hansuttam Finance Ltd. 4/7 Suit No. 1015/2006 upon the documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex. PW1/31 and plaint is Ex. PW1/A. Ex. PW1/1 is the website AMC proposal dated 28.11.2003, Ex. PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/17 are the satisfaction reports, Ex. PW1/18 to Ex. PW1/21 are various bills, Ex.PW1/22 to Ex.PW1/28 are the various letters regarding the payments and Ex. PW1/29 is the legal notice dated 28.02.2005, Ex. PW1/30 is the receipt of UPC and registered AD and Ex. PW1/31 is the letter dated 08.06.2005.
10.It is pertinent to mention here that PW1 was not crossexamined by the defendant despite due opportunities given and accordingly, the right of the defendant to cross examine was closed vide order dated 19.03.2011. Thereafter, plaintiff's evidence stood close vide separate statement of the plaintiff and the matter was accordingly, fixed for defendant's evidence. However, defendant did not appear to lead his defendant's evidence and accordingly, proceeded against exparte vide orders dated 15.07.2011. Thereafter matter was fixed for exparte final arguments.
11.I have heard Ld. Counsel for plaintiff Sh. H. S. Uppal and perused the material available on record.
12.Plaintiff with the testimony of PW1 has proved that the defendant company engaged the plaintiff for availing the following services on AMC (Annual Maintenance Contract) basis:
(i) AMC for Computers and Computer's peripherals dated 01.03.2004 for Rs. 29,500/ per annum.
(ii) AMC for Mail Management dated 23.01.2004 for Rs. 6,000/ per annum.
(iii) AMC for Website Management dated 16.12.2003 for Rs. 10,000/ per annum.
Sh. Ashish Dass vs. M/S Hansuttam Finance Ltd. 5/7 Suit No. 1015/2006 It is further proved that as per the agreed terms and condition, payments against the above stated AMC(s) were to be made on quarterly rest in respect of the contract AMC dated 01.03.2004 and on half yearly basis in respect of the AMC(s) contracts dated 23.01.2004 and 16.12.2003. That the defendant company utilized services rendered by the plaintiff unequivocally and to its entire satisfaction. That defendant company issued satisfaction remarks on each and every visit of engineers of the plaintiff company for rendering the services envisaged as per the AMC(s) contracts, Satisfaction report which are also on record. That defendant company made payment for the first installment in respect of the above referred AMC(s) as per the agreed terms and conditions, however, payment of the remaining period during the tenure of the AMC(s), was delayed on the one pretext or the other, though the defendant company continued availing the services of the plaintiff. That the plaintiff company raised bills/ invoices in respect of the services rendered and parts supplied by the plaintiff, however, defendant failed to make the payment of the remaining period of the contracts, despite repeated requests and demands.
Further, Ex. PW1/18 to Ex. PW1/21 which are various bills raised by the plaintiff company prove that defendant was liable to pay the outstanding amount. Through letters regarding payments which are Ex. PW1/22 to Ex. PW1/28 and legal notice Ex. PW1/29, the plaintiff has proved that despite requests, defendant failed to make the payments. The satisfaction report proved as Ex. PW1/2 to Ex. PW1/17 issued by the defendant for the services of the plaintiff availed by it completely shatter the line of defence taken by the defendant that since service was not satisfactory, therefore, the payment was not made. In fact defendant has not led any oral or Sh. Ashish Dass vs. M/S Hansuttam Finance Ltd. 6/7 Suit No. 1015/2006 documentary evidence in order to prove his case rather he chose to be proceeded against exparte. The testimony of PW1 remains unchallenged and unimpeached since the defendant did not crossexamined the witness despite due opportunities and thus the defendant can be deemed to have admitted the averments made in the plaint.
13.In view of the aforesaid findings, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs. 35,596.50 and interest @ 8 % per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization of the decreetal amount keeping in view the prevalent rate of interest in day to day commercial transactions. No order as to cost. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Pronounced in the Open court today on 17.10.2011.
(SHEFALI SHARMA)
CIVIL JUDGE (WEST)
THC, DELHI/ 17.10.2011
Sh. Ashish Dass vs. M/S Hansuttam Finance Ltd. 7/7