Delhi District Court
Narender Singh vs Sanjeev Kumar on 14 September, 2022
IN THE COURT OF SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE CUM RENT
CONTROLLER (WEST), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Presided by : Ms. Mahima Rai Singh
CS SCJ 388/20
CNR Number: DLWT 03-000910-2020
1.Narender Singh
2. Ranjeet Singh Office at:- WZ-F-15A, Ground Floor, Gali No. 7, Sant Nagar, New Delhi-110018.
......Plaintiffs Versus Sanjeev Kumar Proprietor of M/s Swiss Surface Polishing Machine & Tools B-29, Gali No. 04, Behind Primary School, Matiala Extn., Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059 ......Defendant Date of Institution : 04.03.2020 Date on which judgment was reserved : 31.08.2022 Date of pronouncing judgment : 14.09.2022 CS SCJ 388/20 Narender Singh Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page No. 1 of 7 SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs.45,000/- (RUPEES FORTY FIVE THOUSAND ONLY) ALONG WITH FUTURE INTEREST THREUPON @ 18% P.A. EX-PARTE JUDGMENT Brief facts of the present case are as under :
1. The plaintiffs works as Engineers in a proprietorship firm by the name of M/s Anchor Industries which manufactures hand tools and S.S. Scale, Mrs. Satinder Kaur, who is the wife of the plaintiff no. 2 is the proprietor of M/s Anchor Industries.
2. That on 26.04.2019, the defendant visited the office of plaintiffs and he agreed to make a flat polishing machine with motor and coolant system. In this context it was agreed between the plaintiffs and the defendant that the said flat polishing machine will be sold by the defendant o the plaintiffs for Rs.1,10,000/-.
3. That on the same day, the plaintiffs transferred Rs.30,000/-
as advance amount in the bank account of the defendant and the defendant agreed to deliver the said flat polishing machine to the plaintiffs within 30 days.
4. That since 26.04.2019, the plaintiffs regularly called the CS SCJ 388/20 Narender Singh Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page No. 2 of 7 defendant to finish the flat polishing machine and deliver it within 30 days which ended on 26.05.2019. But the defendant made lame excuses every time the plaintiffs called the defendant to know the status of the said machine. Both the plaintiffs called the defendant on 10.05.2019, 18.05.2019, 25.05.2019, 06.06.2019, 07.06.2019 and 19.06.2019 but the defendant miserably failed to deliver the flat polishing machine to the plaintiffs on time.
5. That after sometime the defendant asked some more advance amount from the plaintiffs so that he can make the said flat polishing machine as soon as possible. The plaintiffs gave the defendant two AC Motors with the capacity of 2800 RPM at 2 HP so that he can install these two motors in the polishing machine.
6. That on the same day, the plaintiffs further handed over the defendant an additional Rs.15,000/- in cash as per his request but even after that the defendant did not deliver the flat polishing machine nor return the amount and the 2 AC Motors received from the plaintiffs.
7. That the plaintiffs visited the workshop of the defendant for almost 10 times but the machine which the defendant manufactured had some defects in it as the said machine was not polishing the materials with precision. The defendant sought some more time to make the said machine perfect but all the defendant did was waste the precious time of the plaintiffs.
CS SCJ 388/20 Narender Singh Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page No. 3 of 7
8. That it has been more than 9 months since the plaintiffs placed an order to the defendant to make the said flat polishing machine but the defendant have not complied with the agreement/ admission dated 26.04.2019.
9. That thereafter, having no alternative, the plaintiffs served a Legal Notice dated 30.01.2020 to the defendant through their counsel. The defendant instead of complying the notice, refused to even accept the said notice dated 30.01.2020, which shows his malafide intention of not repaying back to the plaintiffs.
10. That the defendant is illegally and unlawfully withholding the aforesaid amount of the plaintiffs without any justification and thus the defendant is also liable to pay the interest thereupon @18% p.a.
11. That form aforesaid act and conduct of defendant, it appears that the intention of defendant has become dishonest to cheat and grab the hard earned money of the plaintiffs.
12. The plaintiffs have prayed for passing out a decree of recovery of an amount of Rs.45,000/- alongwith interest of @18% per annum from the date of filing of the plaint till its realization. He ahs also prayed a decree of recovery of AC Motors with the capacity of 2800 RPM and 2 HP in favour of plaintiffs and against the defendant.
CS SCJ 388/20 Narender Singh Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page No. 4 of 7
13. Summons were duly served to the defendant and he was also served by way of whatsapp on 30.11.2021. No WS was filed by the defendant despite opportunity given and on 18.04.2022 he was proceeded ex-parte.
14. During ex-parte evidence, the Narender Singh and the Ranjeet Singh examined as PW-1/A and PW-2/A and relied upon the following documents:-
(a) Ex. PW1/1 is the agreement/ admission dated 26.04.2019.
(b) Ex. PW1/2 is the account statement of the plaintiff dated 26.04.2019.
(c) Ex. PW1/3 is the colour photocopy of photo of polishing machine.
(d) Ex. PW1/4 is the colour photocopy of photo of the polishing machine prepared by the defendant.
(e) Ex. PW1/5 (colly.) is the Returned two envelops of speed and registered AD.
(f) Mark A of the photocopy of the visiting/ business card of the defendant.
(g) Mark B is the photocopy of the legal notice dated 30.01.2020.12. Additional evidence was also led by PW-1 in pursuance of order dated 31.08.2022 on his application u/o 151 CPC for leading additional evidence wherein PW-1 also relied upon:-
(h) Ex.PW-1/6 is the one CD containing conservation between the plaintiff no. 1 and the defendant.
CS SCJ 388/20 Narender Singh Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page No. 5 of 7
(i) Ex.PW1/7 is the certificate under Section 65 B of Indian Evidence Act qua the CD.
15. Thereafter ex-parte PE was closed. I have heared the ex- parte argument as addressed by Sh. Neil Wadia, Ld. Counsel for plaintiffs and perused the case file alongwith the documents annexed and exhibited.
16. The defendants have chosen to remain absent during the entire course of proceedings and henceforth they neither cross examined the plaintiffs witness nor led any evidence. Hence, the averments made by the plaintiff remain unchallenged and unrebutted. The suit is within the period of limitation as well as within the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court.
17. The case of the plaintiffs is that despite repeated notice of demand, the defendant have neither delivered the machine nor repaid the amount received and hence, has prayed for recovery of Rs.45,000/- alongwith future interest @ 18 % per annum from the date of filing of suit till its realization. However, in relation to the relief seeking recovery of the AC Motors, no details or serial no. by way of which the said motors can be identified has been put on record during evidence by the plaintiffs, therefore, the Court is not inclined to grant the said relief. The rate of interest @18% per annum sought by the plaintiffs is exorbitant. Accordingly, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and CS SCJ 388/20 Narender Singh Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page No. 6 of 7 against the defendant for recovery of the sum of Rs.45,000/- alongwith pendentlite and future interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of suit till its realization. The plaintiffs are also entitled to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in open Court (Mahima Rai Singh) on 14th day of September 2022 SCJ-cum-RC (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
(This judgment contains 7 pages.) CS SCJ 388/20 Narender Singh Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Page No. 7 of 7