Bangalore District Court
Mr.G.Puttaswamy Gowda vs The Managing Director on 1 April, 2017
IN THE COURT OF THE XLI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE
AT BANGALORE [CCH.No.42]
PRESENT: SRI.BASAVARAJ B.COM., LL.M.
XLI Addl. City Civil Judge
Dated this the 1st day of April 2017
O.S.No.8225/2015
PLAINTIFF : Mr.G.Puttaswamy Gowda
Aged about 62 years
Chemist (Retired)
S/o Late Patel Javaregowda
Gungaramale
Nonavinakere Hobli
Tiptur Taluk
Tumkur District-572 224.
(By Sri.N.Jayprakash, Advocate)
V/s.
DEFENDANTS : 1. The Managing Director
Mysore Minerals Ltd.
TTMC 'A' Block, 5th Floor
BMTC Building
K.H.Road, Shantinagar
Bangalore-560 027
2. The General Manager
(Production & Sales)
Mysore Minerals Ltd.,
TTMC 'A' Block
5th Floor, BMTC Building
K.H.Road, Shantinagar
3. The Manager
Mysore Minerals Ltd.
Allayanapura Magnasite Mines
Katur Post, Hullahalli Hobli
2 OS No.8225/2015
Nanjangud Taluk
Mysore District-571 314
4. The Manager
Mysore Minerals Ltd.
Byrapura Chromite Mines
Kembal Post, Bagur Hobli
Channarayapatna Taluk
Hassan District-573 111
(D1 By Sri.Mohd. Sheriff,
D2 to 4 By Sri.V.Y.Kumar,
Advocates)
Date of Institution of the Suit: 28.09.2015
Nature of the suit
(Suit on Pronote, suit for Money Suit
declaration & possession, suit
for injunction)
Date of commencement of 05.07.2016
recording of evidence:
Date on which the Judgment 01.04.2017
was pronounced:
Total Duration: Year/s Month/s Day/s
01 06 04
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed this suit for the recovery of Rs.3,19,358/- from the defendants jointly and severally with future interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till date of realization, to award costs of the suit and to pass such other reliefs.
3 OS No.8225/2015
2. The plaint averments in brief is that the defendant is the company constituted under the Indian Companies Act and is a State Government under taking and defendant No.2 the General Manager and defendants No.3 and 4 are the Managers of the defendant No.1 Company at Mysore and Hassan District.
The plaintiff was working as Chemist under the 4th defendant and retired on 31.7.2011. During his period of service, he has discharged his duties with utmost dedication and commitment and retired from service. The 1st defendant having recognized the services of plaintiff, had offered had offered the responsibility of carrying out the analysis work of minerals as a Chemist on contract and plaintiff agreed to the said offer vide letter dated 2.4.2012 No.MML/Production/Analysis/2/2011-12 and agreed to work on tonnage basis as per the table recorded in the said letter.
The plaintiff was assigned with the analysis work at Allayanapura Magnsite Mines, Nanjangud Taluk and accordingly discharged his duties to the satisfaction of the 1st defendant company.
At the request of the 3rd defendant vide letter dated 3.1.2014, No.MML/AMG/DUMP/ANALYSIS/2013-13/722 the plaintiff has completed the analysis work and submitted the certificate of 4 OS No.8225/2015 Analysis dated 16.1.2014 along with Bill No.099 for Rs.3,14,358 and 4th defendant has received and acknowledged the said bill.
In terms of the contract offered to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant company had agreed to pay sum of Rs.1.25 for every ton of analysis and Rs.150/ for every certificate and Rs.750/- as daily Bata and it was according to the contract that the plaintiff had submitted the Bill NO.099 and 1st defendant instead of honouring the commitment made under the offer letter dated 2.4.2012, instead of making a payment of Rs.3,14,358/- has sent a cheque for Rs.6,000/- without any basis. The 1st defendant is bound by the terms of the contract and the offer letter and the adhoc payment of Rs.6,000/ prima facie does not stand to reason and 1st defendant to which the plaintiff had served and given his best years in service is regretted to note the manner in which the payment has been made inspite of the commitment made by the 1st defendant in its offer letter, dated 2.4.2012.
The plaintiff has issued a legal notice calling upon the 1st defendant to honour its commitment, but the defendants have neither replied nor complied. The 1st defendant is due a sum of Rs.3,14,358/- and Rs.5,000/ towards legal notice charges totally in due of Rs.3,19,358/-. Since the defendants failed and neglected to 5 OS No.8225/2015 pay the amount due to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is entitled to claim interest on the suit claim at the rate of 12% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of payment. So, prays to decree the suit.
3. In spite of service of summons, the defendants No.1 and defendants 2 to 4 appeared before the court through their counsels, but failed to contest the suit by filing written statement.
4. The plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked eighteen documents at Exs.P.1 to P.18.
5. Heard arguments and perused the records of the case.
6. On the basis of the above materials, the following points arise for my consideration:
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs.3,19,358/-
from the defendants with interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till realization ?
(2) What Order ?
7. My findings to the above points are as under:
POINT No.1 - In the Affirmative, POINT No.2 - As per the final order, for the following: 6 OS No.8225/2015
REASONS
8. POINT No.1: The plaintiff filed his affidavit in lieu of examination in chief as P.W.1, wherein he has reiterated the averments made in the plaint. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff has filed IA under Section 66 of the Indian Evidence Act r/w Section 151 of CPC to permit him to produce some of the Xerox copies of the documents as secondary evidence and the same was allowed. In support of his case, the plaintiff has also produced Exs.P.1 to 18. Ex.P.1 is letter dated 2.4.2012 written by the defendants offering the plaintiff to carry out analysis work of minerals as chemist and given the table of work and its cost of analysis, Ex.P.2 is certificate of analysis given by the plaintiff under the letter head of the defendants, wherein he has stated that in all he has carried out analysis work of minerals totally 1,10,000 quintals. Ex.P.3 is letter dated 10.02.2014 written by the plaintiff to the defendants with the list of bills pertaining to analysis work and the Ex.P.3(a) is the bill, which is amounting to Rs.3,14,358/- and Ex.P.3(b) is the letter of the defendants stating that since the minerals is not of salable quality and from this the institution is not getting income and hence the company asked the plaintiff to receive Rs.6,000/- for the analysis work. Ex.P.4 is office copy of 7 OS No.8225/2015 legal notice dated 26.6.2015 got issued by the plaintiff calling upon the defendants to pay the amount of Rs.3,14,358/-, Ex.P.5 to 10 are the postal receipts and acknowledgments regarding service of legal notice on the defendants, Ex.P.11 is the letter of the defendants to the plaintiff dated 26.8.2016 stating that the particulars requested by the plaintiff cannot be furnished under the RTI. Ex.P.12 is letter of the defendants dated 15.09.2016 with the copy of the application, which is at Ex.P.13 filed by the plaintiff for the purpose of accepting the analysis work. Ex.P.14 to 18 are Xerox copies of the letters dated 10.12.2013, 3.1.2014, 24.3.2014, 7.4.2014 and 23.4.2014 issued by the Manager, Allailyanapura, Magnasite Mining with regard to conducting of analysis work. Though the defendants appeared through their counsel, but they did not file their written statement and did not cross-examine the PW1. The evidence of PW-1 is not controverted and rebutted. The act of the defendants before the court show that they have no objection to decree the suit. So, the case of the plaintiff goes unchallenged. There is no reason to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff. Hence, its case has to be accepted in toto. So, it has to be held that the defendants offered the responsibility of carrying the analysis work of minerals as a Chemist and defendants' 8 OS No.8225/2015 company agreed to pay amount as per the table shown in Ex.P.1, which totally amounting to Rs.3,19,358/- and on the ground that the minerals do not have salable quality etc., they cannot deny the rate shown in Ex.P.1 to the plaintiff and even after issue of legal notice the defendants No.1 to 4 failed to pay the said amount and hence the plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs sought for. Accordingly, the Point No.1 is answered in the Affirmative.
9. POINT No.2:- In view of my finding on Point No.1 in the Affirmative, the suit filed by the plaintiff has to be decreed with costs. In the result, I proceed to pass the following :
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs. The defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.3,19,358/- to the plaintiff with interest at 12% per annum from the date of suit till realization.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the judgment writer directly on the computer, thereof, is corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court, on this the 1st day of April 2017).
( BASAVARAJ ) XLI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE BANGALORE 9 OS No.8225/2015 ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff's side:
P.W.1 G.Puttaswamygowda
b) Defendant's side: NIL.
II. List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
a) Plaintiff's side:
Ex.P.1 Letter dated 2.4.2012
Ex.P.2 Certificate of Analysis
Ex.P.3 Letter dated 10.2.2014
Ex.P.3(a) & (b) Letters with Ex.P.3
Ex.P.4 Legal notice dated 26.6.2015
Ex.P.5 Two postal receipts
Ex.P.6 & 7 Two postal acknowledgments
Ex.P.8 Two postal receipts
Ex.P.9 & 10 Two postal acknowledgments
Ex.P.11 Letter dated 26.8.2016
Ex.P.12 Letter dated 15.9.2016
Ex.P.13 Cover with copy of the letters
Ex.P.14 to 18 Letters dated 10.12.2014, 3.1.2014,
24.3.2014, 7.4.2014, 23.4.2014
10 OS No.8225/2015
b)defendants side : NIL
XLI ADDL.CITY CIVIL JUDGE
BANGALORE
11 OS No.8225/2015