Delhi District Court
M/S Hyundai Motor India Limited vs Mr. Jeet Singh on 28 August, 2018
Page no. 1 of 8
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUSHIL ANUJ TYAGI, JSCC CUMASCJ
CUMGUARDIAN JUDGE, DISTRICT: SOUTHEAST, NEW DELHI.
Civil Suit no. 50873/16
IN THE MATTER OF:
M/S HYUNDAI MOTOR INDIA LIMITED
2nd, 5th and 6th Floor, Corporate One
(Baani Building), Plot no. 5,
Commercial Center,
Jasola, New Delhi25
Rep. by its Authorised Signatory
........PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
MR. JEET SINGH
R/o HN 114, Sector 16
Faridabad121001.
.......DEFENDANT
Date of Institution : 29.04.2016
Date of reserving order : 28.08.2018
Date of Judgment : 28.08.2018
Civil Suit no. 50873/16 (Sushil Anuj Tyagi)
M/s Hyundai Motor India Ltd JSCC cumASCJcumGJ
Vs. South East, Saket Courts/28.08.2018
Jeet Singh
Page no. 2 of 8
EXPARTE JUDGMENT:
1.This is a suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of Rs. 1,88,000// alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 18% p.a from the due date till realisation along with costs.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff is a company engaged in the business of manufacture and sale of light motor vehicles/passenger cars under the brand name Hyundai.
3. It is alleged that on 13.03.2014, the defendant reported his Hyundai Terracan Car bearing VIN: KMHNM81XR5U170280, Engine no. J3 892294 and Registration No. HR06R0007 at the mileage of 1,96,632 KMS at the plaintiff's workshop with following concern:
(a) To check diesel leakage;
(b) To check batter and given report;
(c) To check white smoke and give report; and further to inspect, verify and rectify the probable defects in the vehicle, if any.
Civil Suit no. 50873/16 (Sushil Anuj Tyagi) M/s Hyundai Motor India Ltd JSCC cumASCJcumGJ Vs. South East, Saket Courts/28.08.2018 Jeet Singh Page no. 3 of 8
4. Thereafter, the vehicle was diligently inspected so as to identify the problems in the vehicle and it was found that the vehicle required overhauling of the engine and fuel injector to function effectively. The plaintiff, accordingly, informed the defendant about the said defect in the vehicle and it was brought to the defendant's knowledge that consent for carrying out the repair works was required from his side. The defendant was further educated that without his consent /concurrence, necessary repairs in the vehicle would not be carried out by the workshop. However, the defendant gave no approval or consent to the plaintiff although several calls were made by the workshop executive during the period 19.03.2014 to 12.05.2014. It was further brought to the defendant's knowledge that the vehicle lying in the workshop requires an accord for repair and in the event the defendant does not wish to get the vehicle repaired, the same may be picked up or be delivered as the space in the workshop to accommodate vehicles was limited and chargeable. It was also informed that in the event the vehicle's delivery is not taken, the defendant shall be liable for parking charges to the tune of Rs. 250/ per day from the date of bringing in the vehicle at the workshop till the date when the delivery is taken. It is alleged that plaintiff has continuously tried its level best to keep the defendant Civil Suit no. 50873/16 (Sushil Anuj Tyagi) M/s Hyundai Motor India Ltd JSCC cumASCJcumGJ Vs. South East, Saket Courts/28.08.2018 Jeet Singh Page no. 4 of 8 communicated and notified to take the delivery of the vehicle from the workshop after paying the storage charges @ Rs. 250/ per day from 13.03.2014. The defendant has deliberately chosen not to give any consent for repair and also has failed to take delivery of the vehicle. Thus, the plaintiff was constrained to issue letters dated 29.04.2015 and 14.05.2015 once again requesting the defendant to take delivery of vehicle after paying the storage charges. It is alleged that in spite of above said reminder letters, the defendant had failed to take delivery of his car upon payment of the dues.
5. It is further alleged that the defendant's Hyundai Terracan Car has been lying in Plaintiff's Workshop since 13.03.2014 and in spite of several reminders via phone/letters, the defendant had not come forward to take delivery of the Hyundai Terracan Car on payment of amount due. Thus, the defendant with ulterior motive has failed to take delivery of his car from the workshop and failed to pay the dues to the plaintiff. Thereafter, the plaintiff through its counsel addressed a legal notice dated 25.10.2015 which was returned undelivered with remark that defendant has left the address. Hence the present suit. Civil Suit no. 50873/16 (Sushil Anuj Tyagi) M/s Hyundai Motor India Ltd JSCC cumASCJcumGJ Vs. South East, Saket Courts/28.08.2018 Jeet Singh Page no. 5 of 8
6. Defendant was served by way of publication, however, he failed to appear before court and was thereafter proceeded against exparte vide order dated 05.09.2017.
7. Thereafter, Mr. Varun Panta, Assistant Manager Legal M/s Hyundai Motor India Limited has led exparte evidence by way of affidavit ExPW1/A wherein plaintiff has reiterated the averments made in the plaint. He has proved the following documents: Sl. Exhibits Documents no.
1 Ex.PW1/1 Copy of Board Resolution dated 27.12.2017 2 Ex.PW1/2 Copy of Repair Order dated 13.03.2014 3 Ex.PW1/3 Copies of letter dated 29.04.2015 & (colly 6 pages) 14.05.2015 4 Ex.PW1/4 Legal demand notice dated 25.10.2015
8. Thereafter, Plaintiff Evidence was closed.
9. I have heard the arguments advanced by Ld counsel for the plaintiff and perused the material available on record. Civil Suit no. 50873/16 (Sushil Anuj Tyagi) M/s Hyundai Motor India Ltd JSCC cumASCJcumGJ Vs. South East, Saket Courts/28.08.2018 Jeet Singh Page no. 6 of 8
10. It is the case of the plaintiff that on 13.03.2014, the defendant reported his car at the plaintiff workshop vide repair order Ex.PW1/2. It is alleged that several calls were made to the defendant but the defendant did not give approval or consent for the necessary repairs and did not pick up his vehicle and is liable for parking charges to the tune of Rs. 250/ per day. The copy of letter dated 29.04.2015 and 14.05.2015 are Ex.PW1/3 (running into 6 pages) which are allegedly sent to the defendant to take the delivery of the vehicle. It is further alleged that one legal notice Ex.PW1/4 was sent to the defendant for recovery of Rs. 1.43 lakhs along with the estimation charge of Rs. 500/ and Rs. 10,000/ towards the legal notice.
11. Evidence was led by the plaintiff wherein PW1 Mr. Varun Pant, Astt. Manager, Legal of the plaintiff was examined who tendered his affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the exhibits Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/4.
12. The perusal of the documents reveals that none of the documents Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/3 is original. The repair order Ex.PW1/2 is the main document upon which the plaintiff has relied Civil Suit no. 50873/16 (Sushil Anuj Tyagi) M/s Hyundai Motor India Ltd JSCC cumASCJcumGJ Vs. South East, Saket Courts/28.08.2018 Jeet Singh Page no. 7 of 8 upon to prove that the defendant has reported his car to the plaintiff but the plaintiff has failed to prove the original document. No explanation has been rendered as to why the best evidence rule has not been followed by the plaintiff. Section 61 of the Indian Evidence Act (IEA) provides that the contents of the document may be proved either by primary or secondary evidence. Further section 64 of the Indian Evidence Act provides for the best evidence rule and stipulates that document must be proved by primary evidence except in the cases mentioned in section 65 IEA. Section 65 IEA provides the cases in which the documents can be proved by way of secondary evidence. Apparently, none of the case provided in Section 65 IEA has been shown to have been applicable to the plaintiff case. The plaintiff has failed to prove the repair order Ex.PW1/2. Even the other documents Ex.PW1/3 (COLLY) are photocopy documents and even the postal receipts are also copy. Nothing has been explained by the plaintiff as to why the documents have not been proved by primary evidence.
13. In these circumstances, this court is of the view that plaintiff has failed to prove his case against the defendant. The suit is hereby dismissed.
Civil Suit no. 50873/16 (Sushil Anuj Tyagi) M/s Hyundai Motor India Ltd JSCC cumASCJcumGJ Vs. South East, Saket Courts/28.08.2018 Jeet Singh Page no. 8 of 8
14. No order as to costs.
15. Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
16. File be consigned to record room, after due compliance.
Announced in the open court (Sushil Anuj Tyagi)
today i.e on 28.08.2018 JSCCcumASCJcumGJ
South East, Saket Courts:New Delhi
28.08.2018 (r)
Digitally signed
SUSHIL by SUSHIL
ANUJ TYAGI
ANUJ Date:
2018.09.01
TYAGI 15:05:48
+0530
Civil Suit no. 50873/16 (Sushil Anuj Tyagi)
M/s Hyundai Motor India Ltd JSCC cumASCJcumGJ
Vs. South East, Saket Courts/28.08.2018
Jeet Singh