Delhi District Court
Arvind Sharma vs Sandeep Saini on 29 October, 2014
Arvind Sharma Vs Sandeep Saini
IN THE COURT OF LD.CIVIL JUDGE02 (SOUTH)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Presided Over By: SH. VISHAL PAHUJA
In the matter of :
CS No. 553/2014
SH. ARVIND SHARMA
S/O LATE SH. RAMASRAYA SHARMA,
R/O RZ54, CHANDAN COLONY,
SAIDULAJAB,
NEW DELHI ... Plaintiff
Versus
SH. SANDEEP SAINI,
S/O SHRI NOT KNOWN,
R/O C730, 2ND FLOOR,
JVTS GARDEN, CHHATTARPUR EXTN.
NEW DELHI ..... Defendant
Date of Institution : 29.05.2013
Date of Reserving Judgment : 29.10.2014
Date of Decision : 29.10.2014
J U D G M E N T
(on Suit for recovery of Rs.47,562/)
1. This suit was filed by the plaintiffs for recovery of Rs.
47,562/ alongwith interest @24% against the defendant.
2. Briefly stated, case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff is engaged in the profession of interior/exterior decoration works, he is a carpenter as well as petty contractor. That in December 2011, defendant approached the plaintiff through his supervisor namely Vijay Shyam Tiwari regarding wooden door, windows and other CS No. 553/2014 1 of 5 Arvind Sharma Vs Sandeep Saini wooden works in the defendant's house at C730, 2nd Floor, JVTS Garden, Chattarpur Extn., New Delhi. That plaintiff made estimated work cost as per required work of defendant. That plaintiff and defendant entered into an oral agreement with regard to the aforesaid work. That as per agreement, defendant agreed to pay the cost of work on time to time in respect of material, labour charges and other petty expenses and he also promised that the remained payment/full and final payment should be made after the completion of said work. That on the assurance of the defendant, plaintiff purchased material, arranged the labour and got completed the work. That during the time of execution of work, defendant had paid only a part amount of Rs.30,000/ to the plaintiff time to time. After completion of work, plaintiff raised bill for sum of Rs.59,290/ vide bill no.068 dated 01.02.2012 and same was received by the supervisor of the defendant on 24.02.2012. That on instruction of defendant and his supervisor, plaintiff completed additional work worth of Rs.21,072/. During the verification of bill, supervisor of defendant and defendant asked the plaintiff to deduct Rs.2,790/ in connection with some left over work and promised to release the outstanding amount at the earliest. It is pertinent to mention here that under instruction of defendant and his supervisor the said work was left. Believing the assurance of defendant and his supervisor, plaintiff deducted Rs. 2,800/ instead of Rs.2,790/. The total amount for work done by the plaintiff came to be 77,562/ (Rs.59,290 + 21,072 2800). The defendant had paid Rs.30,000/ to the plaintiff, after deduction Rs. 47,562/ remained outstanding towards the defendant and to this effect plaintiff raised bill no.085 dated 05.03.2012. That after receiving the bill, defendant promised the plaintiff to release the CS No. 553/2014 2 of 5 Arvind Sharma Vs Sandeep Saini outstanding amount within a week but did not pay the same on one pretext or the other. That on 28.12.2012, defendant flatly refused the plaintiff and threatened him of dire consequences in case he approached the defendant. That plaintiff made complaint to the SHO, PSMehrauli vide DD no.54D dated 28.12.2013 and sent written complaint on 14.01.2013. That on 28.03.2013, a compromise was entered before the police station but till date said outstanding amount has not been paid by the defendant. Hence, the present suit filed by the plaintiff.
3. Upon service of summons of the present suit, defendant appeared and filed his written statement (WS) denying the allegations as contained in the plaint. That plaintiff himself approached the defendant directly. That total amount settled was Rs.30,000/. That there was neither any bill of Rs.59,290/ nor Sh. Vijay Shyam tiwari ever worked as supervisor for the present project. Thus, on the above said grounds the defendant prayed that the suit of the plaintiffs be dismissed with cost.
During the proceedings, due to non appearance, defendant was proceeded exparte vide order dated 11.09.2013.
4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed vide order dated 02.04.2014:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of recovery as prayed for in prayer (a) of the plaint? OPP
2. Relief, if any.
CS No. 553/2014 3 of 5 Arvind Sharma Vs Sandeep Saini
5. In order to prove his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/B. He also relied upon documents Mark P1 (copy of bill no.68), Mark P2 (work details), Ex.PW1/1 colly (original hand written noteOSR), Mark P3 (copy of bill no.85), Mark P4 (copy of work details dated 25.12.2011), Ex.PW1/2 (police complaint dated 28.12.2013OSR), Ex.PW1/3 (complaint dated 14.01.2013), Ex.PW1/4 colly (postal receipts), Mark P6 (copy of compromise), Ex.PW1/5 colly (copy of legal notice), Ex.PW1/6 Colly (postal and courier receipts) and Ex.PW1/7 (original statement). Thereafter, plaintiff closed his ex parte evidence.
6. I have heard the contentions and also gone through the record carefully. My issuewise findings are as under:
ISSUE NO.1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of recovery as prayed for in prayer (a) of the plaint? OPP
7. The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff witness have not been cross examined by the defendant nor any defence has been put up by the defendant. The entire testimony of the plaintiff's witness have gone unrebutted and unchallenged. The documents relied upon by the plaintiff have also been duly proved. There is no reason to disbelieve the version of the plaintiff and nothing on record cast doubt upon his testimony. In view of the evidence led, the issue stands decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
Plaintiff has claimed interest @ 24% per annum which in CS No. 553/2014 4 of 5 Arvind Sharma Vs Sandeep Saini my view is exorbitant & interest @12% seems to be justified in view of the facts and circumstances of the case.
RELIEF:
8. As a consequence to my findings on the above mentioned issue, suit of plaintiff is hereby decreed and a decree for recovery of Rs.47,562/ alongwith the interest @12% per annum from the date of filing the present suit till realization of the decretal amount is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff and against defendant. Costs of the suit are also awarded to the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
9. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 29th Day of October 2014 (Vishal Pahuja) CJ02 (South)/Saket Courts New Delhi/29.10.2014 CS No. 553/2014 5 of 5