Delhi District Court
M/S T. R. Sawhney Motors Pvt. Ltd vs Ajaib Singh on 12 September, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. SIDHARTH MATHUR,
ADJ-02 (NORTH-WEST), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI.
M/s T. R. SAWHNEY MOTORS PVT. LTD. .................... APPELLANT
Through
Sh. Suraj Goliyan,
Advocate.
VERSUS
AJAIB SINGH ................... RESPONDENT
Through
Sh. Jaspreet Singh,
Advocate.
JUDGEMENT
1. New No. : 5253-16.
2. Under Section : Regular Civil Appeal.
3. Date of Institution : 30/11/2016.
4. Date of Final Order : 12/09/2018.
5. Final Order : Dismissed.
INTRODUCTION
1) The recovery of Rs.1,50,000/- ordered against the defendant by the Trial Court on
07.10.2016 has invited this appeal. The parties shall be referred with the same nomenclature, which they had before the Trial Court.
Necessary facts are already part of the impugned judgement and hence I shall straight away deal with the challenges posed by the defendant.
GROUNDS OF APPEAL & FINDINGS
2) First I shall deal with the issue of the appeal being time barred, which contention was orally raised by the plaintiff. The judgement was passed by the Trial Court on 07.10.2016. This appeal was filed on 30.11.2016. The judgement reveals that its certified (RCA No. 5253-16) (Page No. 1 /5 ) copy was applied on 20.10.2016 and made available on 22.11.2016. This period has to be excluded whereby the appeal is within time.
3) Coming to the defendant's objections, it is claimed that the Trial Court did not properly appreciate the factum of the pamphlets affixed at its showroom that all the payments should only be deposited in the account branch and that when no payment was deposited directly with the account branch, it can not be held responsible for any mis-happening.
4) (a) It is clear from the evidence on record that Inderjeet Yadav was the team leader of the defendant's sales department and that he had defrauded numerous customers by withholding & misappropriating their payments whereby FIRs were also lodged by the defendant against him. He was thus the employee/agent of the defendant, who was entrusted with the duty to engage and convince customers to buy vehicles from the defendant whereby his actions undoubtedly would bind the defendant via Law of Agency.
(b) The plaintiff relied upon the customer docket PW1/1 to bolster his claim wherein the payment of Rs.1,50,000/- paid by him to sales representative Inder Jeet Yadav was recorded as the booking amount. It bears the signatures of both the plaintiff and Inderjeet Yadav. The existence and authenticity of the signatures of Inder Jeet Yadav therein is not disputed by the defendant. It was not the case of the defendant that the customer docket booklet did not belong to it. It is thus clear that Inder Jeet Yadav received Rs.1,50,000/- from the plaintiff while acting as a sales representative of the defendant. The customer- plaintiff was only 10th class pass. His friend PW2 Jaswant Singh, who accompanied him to the showroom on the fateful day, was likewise a 6th class pass driver. Thus the level of objectivity to judge the actions of the plaintiff must be of the standard of a layman & rustic (RCA No. 5253-16) (Page No. 2 /5 ) customer. Both the plaintiff and his friend PW2 Jaswant Singh were less educated and intelligent as compared to the sales representative Inder Jeet Yadav, who was assigned to deal with them. It can not be possibly expected from such laymen that they would paid heed to any pamphlets pasted inside the showroom regarding the fact that the cash payments were to be made only with the account branch and not to the sales representative, unless such pamphlets were specifically brought to their notice either by the sales representative or the other staff. The sales representative Inder Jeet Yadav admittedly had cheated numerous other customers in a similar fashion. He was sort of a habitual fraudster whereby it is not hard to assume that he would have prevailed over the plaintiff and PW2 Jagjit Singh in a way thereby convincing them with his sweet talks to pay the money to him instead of making them aware of the pamphlets. Moreover a layman-customer like the plaintiff had no reason to distrust the sales representative of the defendant and to think that any amount paid to him would be personally misappropriated by him. I think it was the defendant who failed in its duty by not keeping a proper check on the working of its employee. It now cannot shift the blame on its customers. It is the managerial staff at the showroom, which should have kept a vigil on the sales representatives to ensure that they do not mislead or cheat the customers.
(c) The defendant's showroom attracts customers from all walks of life. Be that literate or layman. Be that poor or rich. Be that male or female. Hence by merely pasting the pamphlets, the defendant can not shy away from its duty to keep a proper watch over its own employees for ensuring the protection of the interests and well being of its customers so as to live up to its reputation.
Moreover Automobile showrooms like in the present case are very big places and no one hardly pays any attention to any pamphlets pasted therein, which otherwise can (RCA No. 5253-16) (Page No. 3 /5 ) be easily lost sight of amongst the plethora of advertisements and promotions otherwise pasted there.
(d) The defendant also did not produce any pamphlet to give us an idea as to what sort of information and in what manner it was enumerated therein ; whether it was big & attractive enough to gain attention of the prospective customers giving them a reason to read it.
In these given circumstances, such pamphlets cannot defeat the claim of the plaintiff.
5) The customer docket PW1/1, which had the signatures of the plaintiff and Inder Jeet Yadav, belonged to the defendant. The defendant objected to it being considered as a receipt. I do not agree. There is no prescribed format for any document to be termed or considered as a receipt. Any document which records the giving and taking of money is to be considered as a receipt. Hence the said docket is to be treated as a receipt issued by Inder Jeet Yadav while acting as a sales representative of the defendant. Merely because it is written on the docket that "this is not a cash receipt" cannot change its nature. A layman like the plaintiff cannot be expected to behave like a detective doing thread bare analysis of the every act and omission taking place at the showroom. Just like every other reasonable man, he undoubtedly would have trusted the sales representative of the defendant, who was assigned to him.
The objection that the docket did not bear the seal of the defendant or the signatures of the authorised signatory are also meritless. For a layman like the plaintiff, the defendant's sales representative was as good as its authorised signatory. He had no reason to distrust or disbelieve the sales representative of the defendant operating from the showroom itself. The absence of the seal on the customer docket is also insignificant (RCA No. 5253-16) (Page No. 4 /5 ) since the defendant otherwise did not disown the said docket. Moreover when the defendant's own sales representative was hell bent to cheat the customer, he would have ensured that no seal is affixed so as to enable him to smoothly misappropriate the money for his personal gains.
6) The defendant has lastly taken the objection that the plaintiff did not file any proof about the source of Rs. 1,50,000/-. This is a totally frivolous objection. The kettle cannot call the pot black. Moreover if the source of the income was so important from the point of view of the defendant, then I think it should have led evidence that even in normal course, it insisted for such proofs from other customers as well before receiving any monies from them.
CONCLUSION
7) Hence for the reasons assigned herein above, this appeal is dismissed.
The TCR be sent back with the copy of this Judgement.
No costs awarded.
Decree sheet be accordingly prepared.
Appeal file be consigned to record room after due compliance. Announced in the Open Court on 12/09/2018.
(SIDHARTH MATHUR) ADJ-02 (North-West), Rohini, Delhi.
(RCA No. 5253-16) (Page No. 5 /5 )