Bangalore District Court
Tv9 Karnataka Pvt. Ltd vs Mr.Bellie Thomas on 19 January, 2021
IN THE COURT OF THE XXX ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY
DATED THIS THE 19 th DAY OF JANUARY 2021
PRESENT:
SRI. MAANU K.S., B.Sc., LLB.
XXX Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru City.
O.S.NO.8114/2013
PLAINTIFF. TV9 Karnataka Pvt. Ltd.
No.13/1, Rehenius Street,
Richmond Town,
Bengaluru -560 025,
Rep.by its Director
Mahendra Mishra,
S/o Ramadhar Mishra,
Aged about 38 years.
(By Pleader Sri.V.N.Jagadeesh,
Adv.)
/VS/
DEFENDANT. Mr.Bellie Thomas,
S/o Thomas T.A., Major,
No.343, Haseena Cottage,
1st Cross, 1st Main, Vivek
Nagar, Further Extension,
Ejipura Main Road,
Bengaluru -560 056.
(By Pleader Sri.M.N., Adv.)
DATE OF INSTITUTION 06-11-2013
NATURE OF THE SUIT (Suit on Suit for
Pronote, Suit for declaration and damages.
Possession, Suit for injunction, etc.)
2 O.S.No.8114/2013
DATE OF THE COMMENCEMENT
OF RECORDING OF THE EVIDENCE 19-08-2017
DATE ON WHICH THE JUDGEMENT
WAS PRONOUNCED 19-01-2021
TOTAL DURATION : YEAR/S MONTH/S DAY/S
07 02 13
(MAANU K.S.),
XXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BENGALURU CITY.
3 O.S.No.8114/2013
JUDGEMENT
1. This is a suit for damages to the extent of Rs.3,81,000/- including the three months salary in lieu of notice period with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of suit along with costs of the proceedings.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff's case are as under:
(a) It is the case of the plaintiff that it is a broadcasting company that promotes 24 hours news channel covering news extensively through out India with a vision to build a better society by serving the public with more accurate and relative news, the Head office of which is situated at Hyderabad and the regional office is situated at Bengaluru having big and famous news channel in the State of Karnataka. It is the further case of the plaintiff that it had offered the defendant for an appointment as Assistant Producer which was accepted by the defendant and joined the duties on 10-10-2011 by executing an agreement to work with the plaintiff for a minimum period of 3 years.
That the appointment of the defendant was purely on contract basis on a monthly compensation of Rs.27,000/- and after appointment, the defendant has worked about 2 years by discharging his duties in the department of production as Assistant Producer with a view to gain knowledge and screening of news. That as per the condition No.11 of Terms and Conditions of 4 O.S.No.8114/2013 appointment, he was required to work with the plaintiff for a minimum period of 36 months from the date of appointment and after completion of 36 months, either the company can terminate his employment by giving 3 months notice or 3 months salary in lieu thereof or if the employee wishes to leave the organization, he has to serve a notice three months prior to the same or pay three months salary to the organization in lieu of the notice period, but the defendant left the company on 04-07-2013 without prior notice and intimation before completing the said period of 36 months and on the date of leaving the job, the defendant reported to the work, but, abruptly discontinued the service during the day and left the office without any intimation.
(b). It is further contended that the defendant did not have any experience in the department where he was working and the plaintiff had provided essential and required training at its expense for a period of more than 6 months by placing utmost trust with the defendant that he would not quit the organization, but, the defendant, after obtaining training in the media field, left the company without any prior notice. Since the nature of the job assigned to defendant was an essential work in the channel and the said work could not be discharged by all the employees of the organization and each work in the channel is to be carried on by the persons who are appointed for particular work, the discontinuance of the service by the defendant without any intimation and without 5 O.S.No.8114/2013 adhering to the conditions as enumerated in the offer letter and employment contract has caused heavy damage to the plaintiff organization as it has become very difficult for the plaintiff to make alternative arrangements in telecasting the news and programmes in the channel apart from the loss suffered in the form of costs of training provided to him to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/-, as such, the defendant is liable to pay the damages of Rs. 3,00,000/- along with 3 months salary in lieu of notice period amounting to Rs. 90,000/-, hence, it has caused a legal notice to the defendant to pay the damages and despite service of the same, the defendant has neither replied nor has paid the amount demanded by it, as such, left with no option, it has come up with this suit seeking for recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,81,000/- as damages along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and prayed to decree the suit with costs.
3. After service of summons, the defendant made his appearance and filed his written statement, the brief facts of which are as follows:
(a). Except admitting that the plaintiff had offered him for an appointment as an Assistant Producer, which was accepted by him and joined for duties on 10-
10-2011 by executing an agreement, the defendant denied the rests of the averments made by the plaintiff specifically and further contended that he had requested the plaintiff to issue salary slips on every 6 O.S.No.8114/2013 month right from the beginning, but the plaintiff was not in the habit of issuing any salary slips or salary statement to him or to any of its employees and the plaintiff exploited him by forcing him to work for more than 8 hours daily and never paid any additional salary or compensation for extra hours of work extracted by it and though the plaintiff had agreed to pay Rs. 22,000/- p.m. as salary for a job of Assistant Producer at TV9, the plaintiff posted him in News9 English News channel claiming to be its sister concern and the plaintiff used to deduct salary in respect of the leaves availed by him and used to extract work from him even on national holidays, festivals, government holidays and it never allowed him to apply for leave even when he fell sick and his family members became sick and thereby the plaintiff never complied the employment norms of the company.
(b). While denying that as per the condition No.11 of terms and conditions of appointment, he was required to work for a minimum period of 36 months and was required to issue 3 months prior notice to leave the organization or he will have to pay 3 months salary in lieu of the notice period at the time of leaving the company and that he left the company on 04-07- 2013 without prior notice and intimation abruptly discontinuing the services during the day, etc., he contended that the plaintiff never maintained any service records pertaining to him and other employees and there was no transparency in the administration 7 O.S.No.8114/2013 and the plaintiff had discriminated the staff and most of the employees left the plaintiff company due to continuous harassment and mental torture given by the senior staff of the company and the plaintiff company has never created a peaceful working atmosphere for the staff and forced him to work for more than 12 hours daily and not even allowed him to take weekly off, due to which his health got seriously deteriorated and though the plaintiff company being in the field of media, claimed to solve the public grievances, had never maintained a grievance cell to address the grievances of its own employees and forced him to work like a slave and thereby it had violated all labour laws and human right laws and used to refuse to give the documents to him inspite of his several requests.
(c). He further contended that his father was staying in Coimbatore who was diagnosed with prostate cancer on 16-01-2013 and under went operation and biopsy and approached Adyar Cancer Center on 30-01- 2013 for further treatment of cancer and during that time, his old aged mother, who used to take care of him sought help from him to look after his father and to come to Coimbatore by getting few days of leave, for which he approached his senior staff and requested for few days leave for his father's treatment and to sanction medical insurance claim as per company norms for which the plaintiff company senior staffs named Sandeep Dhar and Poorva Jain started to harass him 8 O.S.No.8114/2013 by various means and have not even granted the medical insurance claim as per the norms of the company and it had become unbearable for him to work in the said atmosphere and as such, he took a couple of days' leave during May 2013 for his father's cancer treatment and reported to work in the 1 st week of June 2013, at which point of time, the said Sandeep Dhar and Poorva Jain made him to sit in the reception warning him not to enter the newsroom without their permission and in this regard, he had also approached the Human resources department and informed the same, for which they verbally directed him to sort it out with his seniors, who never cooperated with him to discharge his duties and caused serious mental harassment, as such, left with no other option, he has resigned from his post of Assistant Producer from NEWS9 on 04-07-2013 through email dtd.05-07-2013 and wrote a detailed email letter narrating the reasons for his resignation to Mahendra Mishra, the Director of the plaintiff company. While further denying that the plaintiff had provided with essential and required training to him at the expenses of the plaintiff organization for a period of more than 6 months and that the plaintiff company had suffered loss, etc., he denied his liability to pay the damages including the service of notice on him and further denied that he was given monthly salary of Rs. 27,000/- and therefore, by contending that the plaintiff is not entitled for any sum as claimed by it, he himself claimed for a damages of Rs. 4,00,000/- in the form of counter claim towards 9 O.S.No.8114/2013 medical treatment for his father's cancer treatment, compensation for loss, detriments and mental agony alleged to have suffered by him and therefore, he prayed to dismiss the suit with costs and to allow the counter claim of Rs. 4,00,000/-. However, he has not filed any valuation slip or Court Fees in respect of the alleged counter claim.
4. Based on the above pleadings and taking note of non- payment of Court Fees in respect of counter claim made by the defendant, the Predecessor in office of this Court has framed the following issues:
ISSUES
1. Whether plaintiff channel proves that defendant offered with appointment as Asst.Producer on 10-10-2011 for three years on monthly compensation of Rs.27,000/- and the defendant executed the agreement?
2. Whether it further proves that the defendant left the company without notice on 04/07/2013 and that he is liable to pay the damages of Rs.3,00,000/- ?
3. Whether it further proves that the defendant did not respond to the notices issued on 22/7/2013 and it is entitled for claim amount of Rs.3,81,000/- with interest of 18% per annum?
4. What order or decree?
5. To prove its case, the plaintiff company got partly examined its Manager (HR) as P.W.1, but since PW.1 left the job before his cross-examination, the plaintiff 10 O.S.No.8114/2013 got substituted the evidence of PW.1 by examining the Manager Legal as P.W. 2 and got marked 7 documents as per Exs.P.1 to P.7 and closed its side evidence. To rebut the case of the plaintiff, the defendant got examined himself as D.W. 1 and got marked 4 documents as per Ex.D. 1 to D.4 and closed his side evidence.
6. Heard the arguments of both the counsels appearing for plaintiff and defendant. The counsel for the defendant has filed memo with decisions. Perused the records and the decisions relied by the counsel for the defendant.
7. A perusal of issues framed by the predecessor in office of this Court discloses that there are some typographical error in issue No.1, which needs to be rectified to give proper meaning and to adjudicate the real matter in controversy between the parties properly.
Hence, issue No.1 is re-casted as follows by deleting the same.
RECASTED ISSUE
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that it had offered the defendant for an appointment as Assistant Producer with certain conditions, which was accepted by the defendant and he joined the duties on 10- 10-2011 by executing an agreement to that effect?
8. Since the parties have understood the real matter in controversy between them and have already led in their evidence, there is no necessity for posting the above matter again for recording evidence of both the parties 11 O.S.No.8114/2013 on the said re-casted issue No.1 and by doing so, they will not be put into any hardship or injury as they have already dealt with the matter by placing sufficient evidence on record, hence, I proceed to record my findings on the re-casted issue No.1 and other issues are as under:
Recasted Issue No.1: In the affirmative.
Issue No.2: In the negative.
Issue No.3: In the negative.
Issue No.4: As per the final order for the following:
REASONS
9. RECASTED ISSUE NO.1:- It is an admitted fact that the plaintiff had offered the defendant for appointment as Assistant Producer, which was accepted by the defendant and he joined the duties on 10-10-2011. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that at the time of joining into service, the defendant has executed the agreement in its favour and as per the condition No.11 of the Terms and Conditions of the appointment, the defendant was required to work with the plaintiff company for a minimum period of 36 months from the date of his appointment and after completion of the same, either the plaintiff company may terminate his services by giving 3 months prior notice or 3 months salary in lieu thereof or if the employee wishes to leave the company, he has to serve a notice 3 months prior to quiting the job or must pay 3 months salary to the 12 O.S.No.8114/2013 company in lieu of the said notice period and the monthly compensation fixed was Rs. 27,000/-. Though the defendant has initially denied the execution of the Agreement, he has admitted the execution of the said Agreement dtd.17-11-2011, which has been marked as Ex.P. 3 along with the Offer Letter and its enclosure marked as Ex.P. 2 during the stage of his cross- examination. He has also admitted that after accepting the conditions mentioned at condition No.11.2 of enclosure-B of Ex.P. 2 Letter of Offer, he has executed Ex.P. 3 agreement and accepted the job of Assistant Producer in the plaintiff company by affixing his signature to the said Ex.P. 2 letter of offer and he has also admitted his signatures found on Ex.P. 2 and P.3.
10. A perusal of Ex.P.2 and P.3 also clearly discloses that the defendant had joined the services in the plaintiff company with effect from 10-10-2011 on an annual compensation of Rs. 2,64,000/- and had agreed to serve in the plaintiff company for a minimum period of 3 years with effect from 10-10-2011 and in case of discontinuation from the service within the stipulated 3 years of time, to pay the training and professional development program costs that may be incurred on him amounting to Rs. 3,00,000/-. Ex.P.3 Article of Agreement dtd.17-11-2011 executed by the defendant also discloses the existence of condition imposed on him as condition No.1, but the date from which it was come into effect is shown as 17-11-2011. Hence, in view of the said admission made by the defendant that 13 O.S.No.8114/2013 he had entered into Ex.P. 3 Agreement by accepting the offer made by the plaintiff to work with the plaintiff company as an Assistant Producer and joined the services on 10-10-2011, this Court has no hesitation to answer issue No.1 in the affirmative. Accordingly, I answer issue No.1 in the affirmative.
11. ISSUES NO.2 & 3:- Since these issues are interconnected with each other, to avoid repetition of averments and appreciation of evidence, these issues are taken up together for discussion.
12. It is the further case of the plaintiff that after accepting the Letter of Offer as per Ex.P.2 and joining into service by executing Ex.P. 3, Article of Agreement, the defendant worked with the plaintiff company till 04-07- 2013 and on that date, he left the job abruptly without even intimating the same or without prior notice and due to his abrupt discontinuation of service during the working hour of the day, the plaintiff has suffered a loss to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- spent by it on the defendant to provide essential and required training to him for a period of 6 months apart from suffering the loss and damage caused on account of his abrupt discontinuation in service which was an essential work in the channel, due to which it was put to serious inconvenience, etc. and as such, the defendant is liable to pay the damages of Rs. 3,00,000/- to it along with 3 months salary as the defendant has not even caused 3 months prior notice before quiting the job and as such, 14 O.S.No.8114/2013 the defendant is liable to pay total damages to the tune of Rs. 3,81,000/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a.
13. To prove the above contentions, the Manager Legal of the plaintiff company has examined himself as P.W. 2 by reiterating the said averments and got marked the Letter of Offer, Articles of Agreement, pay slip of the defendant for the month of June 2013 as per Ex.P. 2 to P.4, copy of the legal notice as per Ex.P. 5, postal receipt and acknowledgement as per Ex.P. 6 and P.7. Except these documents, the plaintiff has not produced any other documents to show that the plaintiff has suffered loss on account of the abrupt absence of the defendant and that he left the job without issuing 3 months prior notice or that it had given training to the defendant for a period of 6 months by incurring the costs of Rs. 3,00,000/-.
14. On the other hand, all the above said contentions have been denied by the defendant, who contended that no training was offered to him and the company has not incurred any amount to give such training to him and that he had not agreed to pay the said damages and he was not at all paid the monthly compensation of Rs. 27,000/- as contended by the plaintiff, but the plaintiff used to deduct the salary whenever he used to avail leave and was tortured by his immediate seniors and there was no working condition for him to discharge his duties and he was made to work for more than 8 hours 15 O.S.No.8114/2013 on many occasions without any extra pay and he was even made to work when he was not feeling well, due to which his health got deteriorated and apart from that when his father was suffering from prostrate cancer, the plaintiff company refused to grant casual leave for him to look after his parents and also refused to give the medical insurance reimbursement and thereby the plaintiff violated all the Labour Law and Human Rights Laws and made it impossible for him to work under the said circumstances and as such, he resigned from his job by sending an email on 05-07-2013 with effect from 04-07-2013 and therefore, he is not liable to pay any damages as contended by the plaintiff. To prove these contentions, the defendant has examined himself as D.W. 1 who has reiterated the defence set up by him and got marked the entire case sheet pertaining to the treatment given to his father at Adyar Cancer Institute, Chennai as per Ex.D. 1, email correspondences as per Ex.D. 2 and D.3 along with certificate under Sec.65B of Indian Evidence Act as per Ex.D. 4.
15. A perusal of Ex.P. 2 and P.3 of course discloses that there is a Clause in enclosure of Ex.P. 2 at Clauses No.11.2 and 11.3 which states that the defendant has agreed to enter into an agreement with the plaintiff for a period of 3 years from 10-10-2011 for the required training and professional development program and that the programme entails considerable investment in terms of man power, training hours, infrastructure and technical know how, which requires the defendant to 16 O.S.No.8114/2013 serve with the organization for a minimum period of 3 years and in case the defendant decides to discontinue for any reason, he is required to repay the training and professional development program costs incurred on him to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- and on his failure to repay the said amount while leaving the company, the plaintiff company is entitled to recover the damages so caused together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. and in this regard, he has also entered into Ex.P. 3 Agreement with the plaintiff, which also puts the similar condition on him in Clauses No. 1 and 2. But, as could be seen from the very language employed in Ex.P. 2 and P.3, the damages claimed by the plaintiff to the tune of Rs. 3,00,000/- is in the nature of special damages that may be caused on account of providing the training and professional development programme offered by the plaintiff company. Hence, in order to succeed in the above case, it has become essential for the plaintiff to prove that it has offered the training and professional development programme to the defendant as desired by spending manpower, training hours, infrastructure and technical support as mentioned in Clause-11.2 of enclosure of Ex.P. 2 and Clause-1 of Ex.P. 3 and incurred costs of Rs. 3,00,000/-. Unless and and until the plaintiff proves that it had provided the required training and professional development programme as mentioned in the said Clauses and on account of discontinuation of service by the defendant, it had suffered legal injury and damage, the plaintiff is not entitled to succeed in this suit merely on the 17 O.S.No.8114/2013 ground of breach of contract on the part of defendant as per the provisions of Secs.73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act.
16. A perusal of evidence available on record, discloses that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove before this Court that it has provided the required training and professional development programme and has spent a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- on the defendant to give him a training by placing cogent material and documentary evidence before this Court. Even oral evidence of P.W. 1 does not disclose that the plaintiff company had suffered such a loss and had incurred the costs of Rs. 3,00,000/- to provide training to the defendant. On the other hand, P.W. 1 has specifically admitted that at the time of entering into Ex.P. 2 and P.3, no training was given to the defendant and the plaintiff had not incurred any such costs of Rs. 3,00,000/- to give training to him and he has also admitted that he has not produced any documents to show that the plaintiff incurred a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-to give training to the defendant even after he joined the job with the plaintiff company. Hence, in view of the said admission made by P.W. 1 that he has not produced any documents to show that the plaintiff has incurred Rs. 3,00,000/- costs for giving training to the defendant, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove that it had suffered loss or legal injury on account of the defendant leaving the job within the said period of 3 years.
18 O.S.No.8114/201317. It is an admitted fact that the defendant has left the job within 3 years from the date of joining in to service with the plaintiff company and his appointment was purely on contract basis. Therefore, from the very admission made by the defendant it appears that there is a breach of the terms of service mentioned in Ex.P. 2 and P.3. Though the plaintiff has contended that the defendant has abruptly left the job without any prior intimation and 3 months prior notice, the plaintiff has not produced any documents to show that the defendant was required to issue 3 months prior notice before leaving the job. No where in Ex.P. 2 and P.3 the said condition is imposed.
18. On the other hand, perusal of Ex.D. 2 and D.3 email correspondences produced by the defendant discloses that the defendant had not abruptly left the job and he had sent his resignation through email one month prior to leaving the job on 05-06-2013 itself to his immediate seniors with whom he was reporting and in this regard, there was also an official correspondence with the Director of the plaintiff company asking the reason for his resignation, to which the defendant in detail submitted his reasons on 29-07-2013, wherein he has explained the harassment and insults caused by his immediate seniors and his inability to continue his work in the atmosphere created by the immediate seniors of the plaintiff company at work place, which supports the defence put forth by him. The documents like Ex.D. 1 medical records submitted by the 19 O.S.No.8114/2013 defendant regarding the ill-health of his father and the treatment offered to him during the period, in which the defendant was working with the plaintiff company and Ex.D. 2 email correspondences made by the defendant with his immediate senior named Sandeep Dhar of the plaintiff company regarding the sanction of leave and the reply sent by the said Sandeep Dhar, to whom he was reporting, supports the case put forth by the defendant that there was some humiliation to him and there was no such atmosphere created in the plaintiff company for the defendant to work there and that he is justified in leaving the job within the said 3 years lock in period. Therefore, from the above said materials on record, it is clear that the defendant has left the job within 3 years and was justified in breaching the terms and conditions of Ex.P. 2 and P.3, but at the same time, the plaintiff has failed to prove that it has suffered loss and damage in the form of legal injury for the said breach of terms and conditions of the said contract executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. Hence, in the absence of proof regarding the damage caused to the plaintiff for the breach of contract, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the damages to the tune of Rs. 3,81,000/- without proving the actual legal injury or damage caused to it.
19. Though it has been vehemently argued during the course of arguments that the plaintiff need not prove the actual damage suffered by it in view of the express condition mentioned in Ex.P. 2 and P.3, wherein the 20 O.S.No.8114/2013 defendant has agreed to pay the damages of Rs. 3,00,000/- if he decides to leave the job after he joining the service which is absolutely in consonance of Sec.74 of Indian Contract Act and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the damages of Rs. 3,00,000/- along with a sum of Rs. 81,000/- towards the 3 months notice period. The said arguments canvassed by the counsel for the plaintiff cannot be accepted as rightly argued by the counsel for the defendant as it is for the plaintiff to prove the special damage caused to plaintiff and since the plaintiff has failed to prove that it had provided the required training and professional development programme to the defendant and has incurred a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- towards the said training programme and that the defendant after getting benefited at the costs of plaintiff, left the job of plaintiff breaching the service condition which caused legal injury to the plaintiff, the defendant is not liable to pay any damages and in support of his arguments, he relied on the decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court dtd.18-01-1996 reported in Indian Kanoor-http://indiankanoor.Org/ doc/1777318, wherein the Hon'ble Madras High Court at paragraph-20 while referring to the various decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India differentiating Sec.73 and 74 of Indian Contract Act has held as follows:
"In my view, the decisions of the Apex Court referred to above would go to show in most unmistakable terms and force that what has been dispensed with under the provisions of S. 74 even in a case to which it applies is the proof of actual loss or damage, and it does not justify the award of compensation whether a legal injury has resulted in consequence of the breach or not since 21 O.S.No.8114/2013 compensation is only awarded to make good the loss or damage which naturally arose in the usual course of things, or which the parties knew when they made the contract, to be likely to result from the breach. That being the position well settled and firmly fixed and declared by more than one decision of the Apex Court, it becomes necessary in each case for the Court concerned to consider as to whether a legal injury could be said to have resulted as a consequence of breach complained of in a case before the Court to justify the award of reasonable compensation or damages as estimated by the parties. Legal injury, in my view, could be safely presumed to have resulted in a case where the employer or the management concerned was shown to have either incurred any expenditure or involved itself into financial commitments to either give any special training either within the country or abroad or in having conferred any special benefit or favour to the detriment of the claimant in favour of the violater involving monetary commitments, though an actual damage after the alleged violation or breach of the contract was shown to have separately resulted or not. To illustrate this aspect the claim which is the subject-matter of Second Appeal No. 1291 of 1987 itself may be taken up for consideration. The first defendant has been after selection sent abroad by the plaintiff-management and the management incurred an expenditure of Rs. 25,625.80 for the said purpose on various aspects, and though after obtaining such training at the expense of the management, the first defendant undertook to serve the plaintiff for atleast a minimum period of three years undertaking default to pay a stipulated sum of Rs. 25,000 the first defendant has committed a breach of the undertaking when he left the services of the plaintiff after serving for 14 months only as against the contracted period of three years. In such a case, it becomes unnecessary for the plaintiff to prove separately any post-breach damages. On the other hand, it would suffice to substantiate the fact that the first defendant was the beneficiary of any special favour or concession or training at the cost and expense wholly or in part of the employer and there had been a breach of the undertaking by the beneficiary of the same. In such cases, the breach would per se constitute the required legal injury resulting for the plaintiff- management, out of the breach or violation.
20. The said decision relied by the counsel for the defendant clearly applies to the case on hand. In the said case also a bunch of cases involving the service 22 O.S.No.8114/2013 conditions were taken together and a substantial question of law was framed to the effect 'whether Sec.73 and 74 of Indian Contract Act differ as to proof of damages required under these Sections and whether in the case of service contract, Sec.74 of contract alone is applicable and there is no need to prove damage in respect of claims falling under Sec.74 and the Hon'ble Madras High Court has specifically dealt with the matter and held that mere stipulation of quantum of damage in respect of the breach of conditions is not sufficient and it must to be proved that the plaintiff has actually suffered the loss on account of breach of contract and thereby the plaintiff is entitled to be compensated in respect of the required legal injury resulted to the plaintiff management on account of the breach of contract.
21. As discussed above, the conditions imposed in Ex.P. 2 and P.3 are reciprocal in nature and it has been clearly mentioned that the defendant is liable to pay the damages in case he decides to leave the plaintiff company in 3 years on account of the loss that may be suffered by the plaintiff in providing training and professional development programme which requires considerable investment of manpower, training hour, infrastructure and technical support costing a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- t it to provide the same to the defendant and since the plaintiff has failed to prove that it had provided the required training and professional development programme and incurred costs of Rs.
23 O.S.No.8114/20133,00,000/- for all these training programme to the defendant and the special damage occasioned to it on account of breach of service conditions by the defendant, the plaintiff cannot bring the present suit within the ambit of Sec.74 of Indian Contract Act and claim the damages without proving the actual and legal injury suffered by it as held by the Hon'ble Madras High Court. Hence, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiff has failed to prove the issues No.2 and 3 and there is no hesitation for this Court to answer issues No.2 and 3 in the negative. Accordingly, I answer issues No.2 and 3 in the negative.
22. ISSUE NO.4:- In view of the above discussion and my findings on issues No.2 and 3 in the negative, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with costs. Though the defendant has simply made a counter claim for a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- since, he has not paid any Court Fees along with valuation slip nor has filed the counter claim under Order VIII Rule 6A of C.P.C., the said counter claim cannot be entertained and accordingly, this Court while framing issues has impliedly rejected the counter claim. Moreover, the defendant has not placed any material on record to appreciate the same. Hence, the counter claim made by the defendant is also liable to be dismissed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following:
24 O.S.No.8114/2013ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is hereby dismissed with costs.
The counter claim made by the defendant is also hereby dismissed.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, transcribed thereof, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this THE 19 th DAY OF JANUARY 2021).
(MAANU K.S.), XXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.
25 O.S.No.8114/2013ANNEXURE WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE PLAINTIFF:
PW.1 Madhu. PW.2 Praveen.
WITNESSES EXAMINED FOR THE DEFENDANTS/S:
DW.1 Bellie Thomas DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE PLAINTIFF: Ex.P.1 Authorization letter. Ex.P.2 Offer letter and enclosure. Ex.P.3 Agreement dtd.17-11-2011. Ex.P.4 Pay slip. Ex.P.5 Copy of legal notice dtd.25-07-2013. Ex.P.6 Postal receipt. Ex.P.7 Postal acknowledgement. DOCUMENTS MARKED FOR THE DEFENDANTS: Ex.D.1 Hospital Case Sheet . Ex.D.2 & 3 Email communications Ex.D.4 Certificate under Sec.65(B) of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872. (MAANU K.S.), XXX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.