Delhi District Court
M/S First And Fast Carriers Pvt Ltd vs M/S Laser Spares And Repairs on 2 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT
CONTROLLER (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Ms. Richa Sharma
Civil Suit No. 1628/24
CNR No. DLWT-03-002764-2024
M/S First and Fast Carriers Pvt. Ltd.
Director Sh. Kuruvankat Sankarankutty Sasi,
Regd. Office At: WZ-340
Nangal Raya, New Delhi-110046
Through Its Authorized Representative
Mr. Bibek Kumar Jha S/o Sh. Malik Narayan Jha ....Plaintiff
VS
M/S Laser Spares And Repairs
Through its Managing Directors,
Renu Gupta,
D-62, Sham Nagar,
Sham Nagar Extension,
West Delhi,
New Delhi-110018 ....Defendant
Date of Filing of the suit : 20.11.2024
Date of Judgment : 02.09.2025
Decision : Decree
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.
2,29,321/- along with future interest at 18 % P.A. BRIEF FACTS OF THE MAIN CASE
2. The brief facts of the case are, that the plaintiff is a Private Limited Company that deals in the business of providing Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA RICHA Date:
SHARMA 2025.09.02
16:22:38
+0530
Civil Suit No. 1628/2024 M/S First and Fast Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Laser Spares And Repairs Page 1 of 24
transportation/carriage services in Delhi/NCR and in various other states in India. Sh. Kuruvanka Sankarankutty Sasi, being the Director of the Plaintiff's company has appointed/authorized Mr. Bibek Kumar Jha S/o Sh. Malik Narayan Jha to defend the present suit on behalf of the plaintiff's company vide Board of Resolution/SPA/Authority Letter dated 20.07.2022.
It is contended, that the defendant is a private Ltd company that is engaged in the business of Repairing material & machinery in the name & style of "M/S LASER SPARES AND REPAIRS". The defendant approached the plaintiff and agreed to avail its services for transportation/carriage of its Repairing material & machinery materials. The plaintiff agreed at the request of the defendant and started providing its services for transportation/carriage of the Repairing material & machinery materials of the defendant company.
3. It is stated by the plaintiff, that the defendant kept on availing the services of the plaintiff and getting his Repairing materials & machinery transported to his required destination and accordingly became liable to pay the transportation/carriage charges to the plaintiff. It is further stated, that the plaintiff started sending its bills to the defendant for the services provided by the plaintiff from time to time and the defendant did not make any payment as per the ledger account in respect of the same maintained by the plaintiff in RICHA SHARMA its books of account and that after adjusting the payments made by Digitally signed by RICHA the defendant, an amount of Rs.2,08,000/- remained due and SHARMA Date: 2025.09.02 16:22:46 +0530 Civil Suit No. 1628/2024 M/S First and Fast Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Laser Spares And Repairs Page 2 of 24 outstanding to be payable by the defendant to the plaintiff as on 31.03.2024.
4. It is further averred by the plaintiff, that despite repeated demands made by the plaintiff to the defendant for the payment of the outstanding amount, the defendant failed and neglected to pay certain amount towards the aforesaid due amount since 31.03.2024 i.e. the said due date. Hence, the defendant became liable to pay interest at commercial rate @ 18% per annum on the aforesaid outstanding amount of Rs.21,321/- from 31.03.2024 i.e. after more than one week from the said due date as provided in the bills.
5. It is submitted by the plaintiff, that under the aforesaid circumstances, the interest from 08.04.2024 to 31/10/2024 on the outstanding amount comes to Rs.21,321/-, hence the total amount payable by the defendant to the plaintiff as on 31/10/2024 comes to Rs. 2,29,321/- (i.e. Rs.2,08,000/- towards principal amount and Rs.21,321/- towards interest). It is further contended, that the defendant has deliberately, malafidely, dishonestly, fraudulently and intentionally failed to make the payment of the outstanding amount to the plaintiff which was legally recoverable from the defendant towards the transportation services/carriage charges provided by the RICHA SHARMA plaintiff from time to time and thus the defendant has caused Digitally signed by RICHA wrongful gain to himself and wrongful loss to the plaintiff.
SHARMA Date: 2025.09.02 16:22:54 +05306. It is further submitted by the plaintiff, that having left with no other Civil Suit No. 1628/2024 M/S First and Fast Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Laser Spares And Repairs Page 3 of 24 alternative, plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 29.08.2024 through his counsel upon the defendant through Registered Post on 30.08.2024 as well as through digital mode i.e. via Whatsapp on the number of Ms. Renu Gupta who is managing proprietor on dated 04/09/2024. Reply to the same was also received from the defendant. The plaintiff by means of the said notice called upon the defendant to make the payment of the outstanding amount including interest which amounted to Rs.2,29,321/- along with interest @ 18% per annum from 31.03.2024 till the date of actual payment within 07 days from the date of receipt of the legal notice along with a sum of Rs.11,000/- towards cost of the legal notice, otherwise in case of non-compliance of the legal notice.
7. It is further submitted by the plaintiff, that the said legal notice was duly served upon the defendant, which is also clear from the Tracking/Delivery report of the registered post as proof of service of the legal notice but despite the service of the legal notice, the defendant did not repay the outstanding amount as demanded. Hence, the present suit.
WRITTEN STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT
8. It is submitted by the defendant, that it had a business relationship with the plaintiff's company for a long time and plaintiff used to RICHA SHARMA provide transport services to the defendant's firm. In the month of January 2024, the defendant approached the plaintiff's company and Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.02 16:23:01 +0530 Civil Suit No. 1628/2024 M/S First and Fast Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Laser Spares And Repairs Page 4 of 24 booked two trucks of the plaintiff's company for the transportation of machines from Mundra Sea Port Gujarat to Tikri Kalan, Delhi.
9. It is stated by the defendant, that it booked 2 trucks of 40Ft. open body, Truck No. RJ01GC0116 and RJ01GB7482 as per bilty and both the trucks left the Mundra Sea Port on 19.01.2024 and one truck bearing no. RJ01GB7482 arrived at Tikri Kalan, Delhi on 22.01.2024. When the defendant inspected the machines in the above said truck, it was found that one of the machines was damaged due to the negligence of the driver of the said truck, then after that, defendant also asked about the other truck but out of utter shock, the plaintiff informed to the defendant that the phone of the driver of the said truck is switched off.
10. It is further stated by the defendant, that thereafter two days later i.e. on 24.01.2024, the other truck bearing no. RJ01GC0116 reached at Tikri Kalan Delhi, meanwhile the driver's phone was continuously switched off. The defendant was shocked to see that three of the machines in this truck were found damaged. The defendant also asked about the reason of delay to the driver but he was not able to tell any reason and just avoided the defendant on one pretext or other. The defendant also took pictures and video of the machines in the said truck.
11. It is stated, that the defendant sent mail dated 29.01.2024 to the RICHA SHARMA plaintiff regarding the damaged parts of the machines. Defendant Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.02 16:23:09 +0530 Civil Suit No. 1628/2024 M/S First and Fast Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Laser Spares And Repairs Page 5 of 24 had also sent the pictures of the damaged parts attached with the same mail. It is further stated, that the defendant received the reply from the plaintiff on the same date i.e. 29.01.2024, where the plaintiff refused to pay any charges against the loss. Later on, on 30.01.2024 the defendant again sent an e-mail to the plaintiff and apprised him about the damages that occurred while de-stuffing and loading on the truck and that the plaintiff is responsible for damage and loss but all in vein.
It is further stated, that the defendant took the picture when the trucks departed from the port and when the trucks reached the factory. Later, the defendant tried to contact the plaintiff on phone but plaintiff failed to answer any calls of the defendant. The defendant further tried to contact plaintiff through email and attached photos of the damages but plaintiff did not reply to the same. It is further contended, that email dated 24.06.2024, the defendant mentioned that "We will adjust the amount in your payment and release you the pending payment. We clearly don't have the intention to hold your payment, we also want to clear the account from our side but you need to understand our losses too."
12. It is further stated by the defendant, that it had repaired all the four damaged machines and it costed to defendant's firm around Rs. 85,000/-. It is further contended, that defendant had borne damages to the tune of Rs. 2,00,000/- because of the delay caused by the RICHA plaintiff in delivery of machines to the defendant and defendant was SHARMA Digitally signed by RICHA unable to deliver the machines to its clients on time. It is further SHARMA Date: 2025.09.02 16:23:18 +0530 Civil Suit No. 1628/2024 M/S First and Fast Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Laser Spares And Repairs Page 6 of 24 submitted, that the reply of said legal notice had been sent by the defendant to the plaintiff through speed post. The said reply of legal notice dated 17.09.2024 was duly served to the plaintiff on 20.09.2024 through speed post.
13. It is further contended, that the defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff but on the other hand, it is the plaintiff who is liable to pay damages to the tune of Rs 2,85,000/- to the defendant because the defendant had incurred a loss of Rs. 2,00,000/- due to delay in the delivery of the machines by the plaintiff and further an amount of Rs. 85,000/- for the damages caused the machines of the defendant at the hands of the plaintiff.
Replication on behalf of the plaintiff to the Written Statement of the Defendant
14. Replication has been filed by the plaintiff to the written statement filed by the defendant, vide which the facts of the plaint have been reiterated and the contentions made by the defendant have been vehemently denied.
ISSUES
15. From the pleadings, following issues were framed on 03.04.2025:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a decree of Rs.
RICHA SHARMA 2,29,321/- from the defendants along with interest @ 18% Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA per annum, as prayed for ? OPP Date: 2025.09.02 16:23:24 +0530 Civil Suit No. 1628/2024 M/S First and Fast Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Laser Spares And Repairs Page 7 of 24
2. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts? OPD
3. Relief
16. Thereafter, the matter was listed for the plaintiff's evidence.
EVIDENCE LED BY THE PLAINTIFF
17. In order to prove its case, plaintiff examined Sh. Bibek Kumar Jha as PW-1, who tendered in evidence his duly sworn in affidavit i.e. Ex.PW-1/A, thereby placing reliance upon the following documents :-
1. Ex. PW-1/1 is the Board of Resolution dated 20.07.2022
2. Ex. PW-1/2 is the Tax invoice no. 23SB15101 dated 23.11.2023 of First and Fast carriers Pvt. Ltd.
3. Ex. PW-1/3 is the tax invoice no. 23SB15118 dated 24.11.2023 of First and Fast carriers Pvt Ltd.
4. Ex. PW-1/4 is the the tax invoice no.
23SB16377 dated 24.01.2024 of First and Fast carriers Pvt Ltd.
5. Ex. PW-1/5 is the ledger of account, between RICHA SHARMA the time period of 01.04.2023 to 27.09.2024 Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.02 16:23:31 +0530 Civil Suit No. 1628/2024 M/S First and Fast Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Laser Spares And Repairs Page 8 of 24
6. Ex. PW-1/6 is the legal demand notice for payment of Rs. 2,25,026/- dated 29.08.2024
7. Ex. PW-1/7 is the postal receipt dated 30.08.2024
8. Ex. PW-1/8 is the tracking report delivered on 04.09.2024
9. Ex. PW-1/9 is the certificate under section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act
18. PW1 was cross-examined at length by the Ld. Counsel for the defendant. Thereafter, vide separate statement of PW-1 Sh. Bibek Kumar Jha, plaintiff's evidence was closed on 27.05.2025.
EVIDENCE LED BY THE DEFENDANT
19. In order to prove its case, defendant examined Ms. Renu Gupta, proprietor/authorized representative of M/S Laser Spares and Repairs, and she tendered in evidence her duly sworn in affidavit i.e. RW-1/A, thereby placing reliance upon the following documents :-
1. Ex.RW1/1 (colly) is the copy of the said pictures taken by the defendant
2. Ex.RW1/2 is the copy of the said e-mail dated 24.06.2024 and not 29.01.2024 as mentioned in the evidence affidavit.
RICHA SHARMA 3. Ex.RW1/3 is the copy of the said e-mail dated Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.02 16:23:37 +0530 30.01.2024 Civil Suit No. 1628/2024 M/S First and Fast Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Laser Spares And Repairs Page 9 of 24
4. Ex. RW1/4 is the copy of reply of legal notice dated 17.09.2024 and postal receipt and tracking report of the legal reply
20. RW1 was cross-examined at length by the Counsel for the plaintiff.
Thereafter, defendant's evidence was closed on 05.07.2025.
21. Pursuant to the completion of evidence, the present matter was listed for final arguments.
22. I have heard the final arguments advanced by both the stakeholders at length and have gone through the record carefully. My issue-wise findings are as under :-
ISSUE WISE FINDINGS Issue no. 1
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to decree of Rs. 2,29,321/- from the defendants along with interest, as prayed for ? OPP
23. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff.
24. Before proceeding with the appreciation of evidences advanced, this Court deems it fit to discuss in brief the law laid down with respect to the onus of proof in civil litigation.
25. Before delving into the merits of the case, this Court deems it fit to Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA RICHA Date:
SHARMA 2025.09.02 16:23:44 +0530 Civil Suit No. 1628/2024 M/S First and Fast Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Laser Spares And Repairs Page 10 of 24 discuss in brief the law pertaining to the burden of proof as entailed under the earlier Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the present Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023.
26. The burden of proof in civil trial is the obligation upon the plaintiff that the plaintiff would adduce evidence that proves his claim against the defendant and is based on preponderance of the probabilities. Under Indian law, until and unless an exception is created by law, the burden of proof lies on the person making any claim or asserting any fact. A person who asserts a particular fact is required to affirmatively establish it. Relevant provisions of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam 2023 dealing with burden of proof are produced as under:-
Burden of proof:-
104. Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.
When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, it is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.
105. On whom burden of proof lies.--
RICHA SHARMA The burden of proof in a suit or Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.02 16:23:51 +0530 Civil Suit No. 1628/2024 M/S First and Fast Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Laser Spares And Repairs Page 11 of 24 proceeding lies on that person who would fail if no evidence at all were given on either side.
106. Burden of proof as to particular fact.-
The burden of proof as to any particular fact lies on that person who wishes the Court to believe in its existence, unless it is provided by any law that the proof of that fact shall lie on any particular person.
109. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.--
When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.
27. Further, the issues in civil cases are to be decided on the scale of preponderance of probabilities. The doctrine of preponderance of probabilities was discussed in the judgment titled Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research v. Jaspal Singh, (2009) 7 SCC 330 which reads as under:
Digitally "17. In Syad Akbar v. State of Karnataka (1980) 1 SCC 30 this curt dealt with in details signed by RICHA RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.02 16:23:58 +0530 Civil Suit No. 1628/2024 M/S First and Fast Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Laser Spares And Repairs Page 12 of 24 the distinction between negligence in civil law n din criminal law. It has been held that there is marked difference as to the effect of evidence, namely, the proof, in civil and criminal proceedings. In civil proceedings, a mere preponderance of probability is sufficient, and the defendant is not necessarily entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt; but in criminal proceedings, the persuasion of guilt must amount to such a moral certainty as convinces the mind of the court, as a reasonable man, beyond all reasonable doubt".
28. In Dr. N.G. Dastane Vs. Mrs. S. Dastane on 19th March, 1975 AIR 1975 SC 1534, (1975), SCC 326, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
"24.The normal rule which governs civil proceedings is that a fact can be said to be established if it proved by a preponderance of probabilities. This is for the reason that under the Evidence Act, Section 3, a fact is said to be proved when the court either either believes it to exist or considers its existence so probably that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. The belief regarding the existence of a fact may thus be founded on a balance of probabilities. A prudent man faced with conflicting probabilities concerning a fact-situation will act on the supposition that the fact exists, if on weighing the various probabilities he links that the preponderance is in favour of the RICHA existence of the particular fact. As a prudent SHARMA man, so the court applies this test for finding Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.02 16:24:05 +0530 Civil Suit No. 1628/2024 M/S First and Fast Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Laser Spares And Repairs Page 13 of 24 whether a fact in issue can be said to be proved. The first step in this process is to fix the probabilities, the second to weigh them, though the two may often intermingle. The impossible is weeded out at the first stage, the improbable at the second. Within the wide range of probabilities the court has often a difficult choice to make but it is this choice which ultimately determines where the preponderance of probabilities lies. Important issues like those which affect the status of parties demand a closer scrutiny than those like the loan on a promissory note : "the nature and gravity of an issue necessarily determines the manner of attaining reasonable satisfaction of the truth of the issue "Per Dixon, J. In Wright v. Wright (1948) 77 C.L.R. 191 at p. 210; or as said by Lord Denning, "the degree of probability depends on the subject-matter. In proportion as the offence is grave, so ought the proof to be clear" Blyth v. Blyth (1966) 1 A.E.R. 534 at
536. But whether the issue is one of cruelty or of a loan on a pronote, the test to apply is whether on a preponderance of probabilities the relevant fact is proved. In civil cases this, normally, is the standard of proof to apply for finding whether the burden of proof is discharged."
29. Therefore, on the basis of the law laid as above, this court proceeds with the appreciation of evidence as adduced in the present suit.
30. At the very outset, it is pertinent to mention that the present suit has RICHA been filed by the plaintiff seeking a recovery of Rs. 2,29,321/- for SHARMA Digitally signed by RICHA the goods delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant. To begin with, SHARMA Date: 2025.09.02 16:24:12 +0530 Civil Suit No. 1628/2024 M/S First and Fast Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Laser Spares And Repairs Page 14 of 24 plaintiff has placed on record the Board Resolution that is exhibited as Ex. PW-1/1 dated 20.07.2022. Perusal of the said document clearly reveals, that Sh. Kuruvankat Sankarankutty Sasi, Sh. Kamal Kumar Jangir, Sh. Sumit Baweja, Sh. Bibek Kumar Jha and Sh. Vishnu Sharma, were authorized severally to delegate their aforesaid authority in favor of any other official of the company, who was also authorized to ratify the act of any official of the company earlier done by him/them on behalf of the company as deemed fit and proper by him. Therefore, in accordance with the said resolution, the plaintiff company authorized Sh. Bibek Kumar Jha in this regard and he was examined as PW-1/1, being accountant in the plaintiff company to prove the case of the plaintiff.
31. Thereafter, the plaintiff company has also placed reliance on invoices exhibited as PW-1/2, PW-1/3 and PW-1/4 in order to establish its case. The bare perusal of the said invoices clearly reveals, that bills were raised in the name of defendant i.e. Laser Spares And Repairs, D-62, Sham Nagar, Extension, New Delhi, West Delhi-110018 on three different dates i.e. 23.11.2023 , 24.11.2023 and 24.01.2024 respectively for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 2,04,000/- respectively. The bills duly bear the name and the stamp of the defendant along with the signature of the authorized signatory. Thus from the bare perusal of these three documents i.e. PW-1/2, PW-1/3 and PW-1/4, it duly RICHA stands established that three bills for transportation of goods from SHARMA Digitally signed by the plaintiff to the defendant were duly raised by the plaintiff against RICHA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.02 16:24:18 +0530 Civil Suit No. 1628/2024 M/S First and Fast Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Laser Spares And Repairs Page 15 of 24 the defendant. It is further not out of place to mention, that the amount outstanding by the defendant to the plaintiff also duly stands reflected in the ledger account of the plaintiff that has been maintained by the plaintiff for the defendant and the said document is exhibited as Ex.PW-1/5. The perusal of the said document clearly reflects, that an amount to the tune of Rs. 2,08,000/- is outstanding against the defendant.
32. It is apposite to note, that a legal notice dated 29.08.2024 and exhibited as PW-1/6 stands duly sent by the plaintiff to the defendant and the same is confirmed by the tracking and delivery report i.e. exhibited as PW-1/7 and PW-1/8 respectively. The said documents clearly established the delivery of the legal notice upon the defendant. In support of the computer generated documents placed on record and relied upon by the plaintiff, the plaintiff has also placed on record the certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act i.e. exhibited as PW-1/9.
33. In light of the document placed on record as above, it is imperative to mention, that the plaintiff has duly established primafacie that the three bills were raised by the plaintiff against the defendant for the goods so delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant. The non- payment of the due amount further stands reflected in the ledger account maintained by the plaintiff for the defendant and in lieu of RICHA the same the plaintiff raised the said demand by way of legal notice SHARMA i.e. exhibited as PW-1/6.
Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.02 16:24:25 +0530 Civil Suit No. 1628/2024 M/S First and Fast Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Laser Spares And Repairs Page 16 of 24Now, in the teeth of the above documents and due analysis of the same, it primafacie stands established that the claim of the plaintiff was legitimate with respect to the goods supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant and the onus shifted upon the defendant to established that the goods so supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant were defective and in case of delivery of the goods in damaged/defective position, the defendant was not in any legal obligation to make the payment for the goods so delivered.
34. At this stage, Court further deems it fit to deliberate into the appreciation of evidence adduced on behalf of defendant i.e. RW-1 Ms. Renu Gupta, who is the proprietor as well as the authorized representative for the defendant. It is apropos to mention, that RW-1 in her cross-examination duly admitted, that she had done transit insurance with respect to the goods in question but on specific question being put to her by the Court with regard to the placing of the said document on record if any, she denied to the same. The relevant excerpts of her cross examination to this effect are reproduced as under:-
I had duly done a transit insurance with respect to the transaction in question Court question. Q. Have you place the said transit on record.
RICHA Ans. No.
SHARMA
Digitally signed by
RICHA SHARMA
Date: 2025.09.02
16:24:32 +0530
Civil Suit No. 1628/2024 M/S First and Fast Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Laser Spares And Repairs Page 17 of 24
Thus from the above excerpts of the cross examination of RW- 1, it categorically stands established, that no document has been placed on record of the Court by defendant to even primafacie prove that the goods in transit were duly insured by the defendant, contrary to the claim so made. It is further crucial to note, that RW-1 categorically admitted in her cross examination, that the bills so raised by the plaintiff against the defendant for the transport service so hired by the defendant from the plaintiff were duly received by the defendant, meaning thereby that the defendant in the first place has not questioned to the bills being raised by the plaintiff for the goods that were delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant. The relevant excerpts of her cross examination to this effect are as under:
it is correct that with respect to the bill raised by the plaintiff against me for the transport service provided by the plaintiff to the defendant, the defendant had duly received the bill.
35. Moving further, it is material to note, that RW1 further admitted in her cross examination, that despite the legitimate bills being raised by the plaintiff against the defendant, the defendant has not made payment to the tune of Rs. 2,08,000/- and the relevant excerpts of her cross examination to this effect are as under:
It is correct that I had not made any payment with RICHA respect to the bill raised by the plaintiff against SHARMA me to the tune of Rs. 2,08,000/-Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.02 16:24:38 +0530 Civil Suit No. 1628/2024 M/S First and Fast Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Laser Spares And Repairs Page 18 of 24
It is further pellucid to note, that RW1 further went on to admit, that despite repeated requests being raised by the plaintiff for clearing of the payments due by the defendant towards the plaintiff, the same was not being done by the defendant and the relevant excerpts of her cross examination to this effect are as under:
It is correct that despite repeated request raised by the plaintiff had not cleared the payment.
36. At this juncture, it is relevant to note, that it is deposed by RW-1 in her cross examination, that as a general business practice, the payment is made once the goods stand delivered in proper condition and in case in hand the goods were though delivered but were completely damaged. Now, on the basis of the said statements being so made by RW-1, primarily two things stand highlighted :-
1. Firstly, that there was an existence of a general business practice whereby the payment of the goods so delivered was made only pursuant to the delivery of the goods
2. Secondly, that the payment was to be made only after the goods were delivered in proper condition.
37. Now, once the defendant has averred/deposed in her cross examination that the above two conditions were the pre-requisite as a part and parcel of the business practice before disbursement of any RICHA amount due by the defendant to the plaintiff, the onus shifted upon SHARMA Digitally signed by RICHA the defendant to prove that these two pre-requisites/pre-conditions SHARMA Date: 2025.09.02 16:24:44 +0530 Civil Suit No. 1628/2024 M/S First and Fast Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Laser Spares And Repairs Page 19 of 24 were actually the prevailing business terms between the plaintiff and the defendant and the same ought to have been satisfied by the plaintiff prior to making of the payment by the defendant to the plaintiff. However, apart from making the bald and self serving statements to this effect, not even a single document has been placed on record by the defendant to support the said averments.
38. It is also apposite to note, that though the defendant raised the defence via its WS with regard to the expenditure so incurred by it in repairing of the machines in question but at the same time RW-1 has categorically admitted in her cross examination, that it has not placed on record any bill pertaining to the expenditure so incurred by them in repairing of the machines in question. Therefore, the said contentions stand unproved in the absence of any legitimate bill being placed on record in this regard and actual disbursement of money to have taken place from the defendant to the plaintiff. The relevant excerpts of her cross examination to this effect are as under:-
I have not placed on record any bill pertaining to the expenditure incurred by me for repairing the machine i.e. Rs. 2,85,000/-
It is correct that I have not place any proof on RICHA record to substantiate the loss alleged by me to SHARMA Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA the tune of Rs. 2,85,000/-Date: 2025.09.02 16:24:50 +0530
39. It is further apposite to note, that RW1 in her cross examination has Civil Suit No. 1628/2024 M/S First and Fast Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Laser Spares And Repairs Page 20 of 24 stated, that the plaintiff was suppose to deliver two trucks but the second truck was not only delivered belated in time but also that the goods delivered by both the trucks were completely damaged. Now, it was imperative upon the part of the defendant to have proved in the first place the terms of contract vide which it was so agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant, that in the event of belated delivery or damaged delivery, the plaintiff will be liable for the losses so incurred by the defendant but no such documents stands placed on record by the defendant to even primafacie establish the requisite date on which the goods were to be delivered as agreed and in the absence of no proof being placed on record qua the agreed dated of delivery, the question about the belated delivery can not be adjudged as nothing has came on record to establish the actual date of delivery of goods.
40. At the cost of repetition, it is being stated, that the defendant has not placed on record any written contract or any other form of communication between the defendant and the plaintiff to even primafacie establish as to the dates of delivery that were so agreed between the parties in question. Even otherwise, though the defendant had placed reliance upon the document i.e. RW-1/1, which is coloured photo copy of the photographs, but no certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act has placed on record to make the said photographs admissible in evidence. Even if the Court RICHA SHARMA for a moment does not take into consideration the fact that the Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA certificate under Section 65 B of the Indian Evidence Act is not Date: 2025.09.02 16:24:56 +0530 Civil Suit No. 1628/2024 M/S First and Fast Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Laser Spares And Repairs Page 21 of 24 placed on record, even then bare perusal of the document i.e. RW- 1/1, on the first page is prima facie reflecting that all the three machines are loaded properly in an aligned manner. Thereafter, on page two, it has been though marked out that the sheet panel stands broken and the metal frame was lost but by simplicitor stating that the panel sheets stands damaged and the metal frame stands lost, by no stretch of imagination it can be deduced, that the said breakage was caused in the course of transit or that the metal sheet was lost by the negligence/conduct of the driver and that for the same, the plaintiff is liable.
Further, from the said photographs, the actual place where the damage or the loss was caused is unclear i.e. whether the same was caused in the course of transit or it was caused at the time of unloading of goods at the place of delivery as the same cannot be deciphered from the said photographs. There is nothing on record in form of any agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant or anything in form of the terms so alleged to be agreed between the parties, that it was the plaintiff who was also responsible for the unloading of the goods at the place of delivery.
41. Therefore, in the light of the above analysis this Court is of the considered opinion, that plaintiff on the scale of preponderance of probabilities has discharged burden placed upon it to prove the bills that were duly raised and the amount that was due as the result of the RICHA SHARMA bills so raised by the plaintiff against the defendant. However, Digitally signed by RICHA SHARMA defendant on the other hand has miserably failed to discharge the Date: 2025.09.02 16:25:02 +0530 Civil Suit No. 1628/2024 M/S First and Fast Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Laser Spares And Repairs Page 22 of 24 burden placed upon it to show that the goods were actually damaged in the course of the transit and arrived at the place of delivery in damaged condition and that it was the plaintiff who was exclusively responsible for the damaged so alleged to be caused. Additionally, defence of the defendant further stands punctured on various aspects as the defendant has further failed to prove, that the payment even despite the raising of the bills was due and contingent only upon the delivery of the goods in proper condition irrespective of the onus of damage being proved upon the plaintiff.
42. Therefore, in view of the detailed discussions as above and as a result of the appreciation of evidence, this court is of the considered opinion that plaintiff has duly proved on the scale of preponderance of probabilities that an amount of Rs. 2,08,000/- is due by the defendant to the plaintiff. Thus, Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Issue no. 2
1. Whether the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands and has suppressed material facts? OPD
43. As far as the second issue goes, it is contended by the defendant that the plaintiff neither approached the Court with clean hands nor has it brought the entire facts on record of the Court. Now, in the light of RICHA SHARMA the said averments, it was imperative upon the part of the defendant Digitally signed by RICHA to have highlighted the facts that are alleged to be suppressed by the SHARMA Date: 2025.09.02 16:25:09 +0530 Civil Suit No. 1628/2024 M/S First and Fast Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Laser Spares And Repairs Page 23 of 24 plaintiff in its plaint and at the same time it was also expected that the defendant ought to have adduced evidence to bring to the surface the manner and mechanism in which the plaintiff has not approached the Court with clean hands but all in vein. Apart from making bald and blanket averments in the WS regarding the material suppression of the facts at the hands of the plaintiff and not coming to the Court with clean hands by the plaintiff, the defendant has not led any cogent evidence to prove the same. Leave alone the evidence, the said facts have not even been argued by the defendant during the course of the arguments and in this eventuality, the present issue i.e. Issue no. 2 also stands decided against the defendant.
Relief
44. Accordingly, the suit of plaintiff is hereby decreed for the sum of Rs.
2,08,000/-along with interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant from the date of the filing of the suit till its realization. Plaintiff is also entitled to the cost of the suit.
45. Decree Sheet shall be prepared on filing of deficient Court fees, if any.
46. File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Digitally signed RICHA by RICHA SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2025.09.02 16:25:16 +0530 Announced in open Court (Richa Sharma) on 02.09.2025. SCJ-cum-RC (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi 02.09.2025 Civil Suit No. 1628/2024 M/S First and Fast Carriers Pvt. Ltd. Vs M/S Laser Spares And Repairs Page 24 of 24