Delhi District Court
Federal Express Corporation vs . M/S Ara Capital Consultancy on 21 March, 2012
-1- S No. 322/11 Federal Express Corporation Vs. M/s ARA Capital Consultancy 21.03.2012
Present: Sh. Anuj Jain, Ld. Proxy Counsel for plaintiff.
None for defendant.
Heard. Perused. Defendant has not put in its appearance U/o 37 CPC till date inspite of its service with summons for appearance U/o 37 CPC, on 11.11.2011 and the stipulated statutory period of 10 days for putting in appearance of the said defendant, has expired. Hence, the plaintiff is entitled for judgment. The allegations in the plaint have to be deemed to be correct as per the provision of order 37 Rule 2(3) CPC.
The plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 21,768.80 U/o 37 CPC. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff namely Federal Express Corporation is a Body Corporate and that Sh. Vikram Mehta, Authorized Signatory of the plaintiff is duly authorized and empowered to sign, verify, file the present suit for and on behalf of plaintiff vide Special Power of Attorney dated 13.05.2009 executed by the plaintiff in his favour. It is further the claim of the plaintiff that the defendant is a Private Limited Company and carrying on business under the name and style of M/s ARA Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. and that the defendant deals in the multidisciplinary consultancy and requires exportimport documents. Since the defendant deals with documents only therefore, it does not require the Certificate of Importer Exporter Code ("IEC") issued by the Ministry of Commerce. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the defendant through its ........Cont.
-2-Director Ms. Anusha Khosla, approached the plaintiff for air shipment of materials to be exported to destination outside India by the plaintiff company under instruction and on behalf of the defendant and that the defendant also executed a FedEx Service Contract hereinafter called as the "Contract" in favour of the plaintiff on 30.06.2010. It is further the claim of the plaintiff that the terms and conditions of Contract are applicable and binding on the respective parties. As per the practice and procedure a Customer/Account No. 141045512 was also allotted to the defendant for the said assignment. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the assignment under the Contract was to be carried out either through itself or through the service participant's details as provided in the tariff chart attached to the Contract and that as per clause (a) & (b) of the Contract, the defendant has agreed that the terms and conditions of the FedEx International Air Waybill shall be applicable to the defendant and furthermore, the defendant by signing the contract has also agreed that the terms and conditions as mentioned on the FedEx Air Waybill is part of the contract. Accordingly, the defendant was bound by the terms and conditions of carriage as detailed out on the Airway Bill. It is pertinent to mention that as per Clause (c) & (r) of the Contract, the rates were to be as per the tariff chart attached with the Contract and the chargeable weight and rates could be varied. It is further the case of the plaintiff that based on representation so made by the defendant and the assurance given under the Contract, the plaintiff started delivering the Shipments to the destinations given by the defendant. It is ........Cont.
-3-further the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff under the contract made the following shipments and the chart laid down states the details regarding the same.
Air Waybill Shipper Recipient Shipment Delivery
No. Date Date
871372112925 ARA Mr. Vinod 12.07.2010 15.07.2010
Capital Sharma
Consulta
ncy
Services
It is further the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff on completing the assignment as aforesaid, raised invoice on the defendant for the total amount of Rs. 17,858/ towards the air shipment charges in conformity with the terms and conditions of the Contract. As per the contract and as also mentioned in the said invoices, the payments were to be made by the defendant within 15 days from the date of the invoice (the due date) and for the convenience of the defendant the due dates of payment were also mentioned on the respective invoice. It was agreed by the defendant in terms of the contract that any payment after the due date would carry an interest @ 2% p.m. The said fact was also clearly mentioned in the invoice. The defendant has failed to clear the total due amount. The details of the invoices raised by the plaintiff company are as given below: Invoice No. Invoice Invoice Amount Invoice Date Amount Due Due Date 964743860 22.07.2010 17858.00 17858.00 06.08.2010 Total 17858.00 ........Cont.
-4-It is further the case of the plaintiff that despite the due receipt of the invoice and even after the expiry of the due date of payments, the defendant has failed to pay the due amount. The plaintiff has therefore become entitled to claim interest interest @ 2% p.m. from the due dates on the respective invoice. It is further the case of the plaintiff that the defendant has been requested several times to make the payments of dues but the defendant has failed to pay the same, despite repeated requests and demands made by plaintiff.
Since the defendant has not put in appearance U/o 37 CPC within 10 days of his service as per order 37 Rule 2(3) CPC, therefore allegations in the plaint are deemed to be correct and the plaintiff is entitled to judgment forthwith. The legal notice dated 22.04.2011 was duly served upon the defendant & the defendant is liable to pay a sum of Rs. 21,768.80 as claimed by the plaintiff. The suit is within limitation. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the pendentalite and future interest @ 24% p.a. SI would meet the ends of justice. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rs. 21,768.80 alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 24% p.a. with costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
(Ashutosh Kumar) Sr. Civil JudgecumRent Controller North West: Rohini Courts, Delhi.
21.03.2012 ........Cont.