Bangalore District Court
Dtdc Courier And Cargo Ltd vs Ms Trynbuy India Pvt Ltd on 22 January, 2026
KABC010232972014
IN THE COURT OF XXXI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU
Dated this the 22nd day of January 2026
Present : SRI.VEDAMOORTHY B.S., B.A.(L)., LL.B.,
XXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-14)
O.S.No.8376/2014
PLAINTIFF : DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd.,
No.269, 1st Main,
Albert Victor Road,
Chamarajpet,
Bangalore - 560 018,
Represented by its Zonal Admin
& Regional HR Manager.
T.S. Ramamurthy
Aged about 55 years.
(By Sri.Suneel S. Narayan, Advocate)
V/s
DEFENDANT : M/S. Trynbuy Inida Pvt Ltd,
WT7b 1103, Godrej Woodsman Estate,
Flat No.101, Aishwarya Signum,
Bellary Road, Hebbal,
Bangalore - 560 024.
Represented by its Director/ Manager
(By Sri.Yashir Ali, Advocate)
05.11.2014
Date of institution of the suit.
2
O.S.No.8376/2014
Nature of the suit Recovery of money
Date of the commencement of
07.12.2016
recording evidence
Date on which the Judgment
22.01.2026
was pronounced
Years Months Days
Total duration
11 02 17
(VEDAMOORTHY B.S.)
XXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of money. The suit claim is Rs.4,60,664/- together with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization and Court costs.
2. The brief facts of the plaintiff are that the plaintiff is Public Limited Company registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The core activity of the plaintiff is courier and carriage of cargo, transshipment of documents and other parcel throughout India and Abroad. Since two decades, the plaintiff is rendering the services to its 3 O.S.No.8376/2014 customers. The defendant approached the plaintiff for transshipment of its letters, documents and parcels including dox and non-dox at the competitive price. In order to have a long lasting business relationship with the defendant, the plaintiff agreed for the same. During the business, on 22.02.2013, the Contract Agreement was executed between the defendant to that effect. In terms of the Agreement, the plaintiff was rendering services to the defendant to its satisfaction and there was no latches or deficiency in service on the part of the plaintiff. After delivering the consignments entrusted by the defendant to the various destinations, the plaintiff was raising the invoices and the defendant was making its payments. The defendant during the month of February 2013 has taken transshipment services from the plaintiff for transportation of certain consignments and to deliver the same to various destinations. In that regard, the plaintiff has raised invoices bearing Nos.900515637, 9000545898, 9000671326, 9000689062, 9000714158 and 9000729936. The total amount covered under the said invoices was Rs.4,60,664/-. 4
O.S.No.8376/2014 The said amount is outstanding by the defendant to pay to the plaintiff. As per the terms and conditions of the Agreement, the defendant is liable to make its payment. But, the defendant did not make any payment to the plaintiff towards the aforesaid invoices. On 01.09.2014, the plaintiff issued Legal Notice to the defendant calling upon the defendant to make the aforesaid payments. In spite of due service of the said notice, the defendant did not make the said payment. Therefore, the plaintiff filed this suit.
3. After due service of summons to the defendant, the defendant has appeared before this Court and filed the written statement along with counter claim of Rs.13,95,794/- from the plaintiff together with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of counter claim till the date of its payment. The facts admitted in the written statement are that the defendant approached the plaintiff for transhipment of Dox and Non-Dox at a competitive price and the plaintiff in order to have a long lasting business relationship with the defendant has agreed to provide the services required by the for the movement of the letters, 5 O.S.No.8376/2014 documents, parcels including Dox and Non-Dox of the defendant to various places and destinations. The plaintiff and the defendant have entered into an Agreement dated 22.03.2013. The defendant during the month of February 2013 has taken transhipment services from the plaintiff for transportation of consignments and to deliver the same to various destinations. The plaintiff has raised the invoices bearing Nos.900515637, 9000545898, 9000671326, 9000689062, 9000714158 and 9000729936. The plaintiff has issued the Legal Notice dated 01.09.2014 to the defendant and it was duly served on the defendant. The other plaint averments are denied as false.
4. The case of the defendant narrated in the written statement is that the defendant is a Company incorporated and registered under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of running an e- commerce web portal allowing its customers to sample and purchase various consumer products related to beauty, lifestyle, food, etc. online on the basis of user subscription plans offered by the web portal of the defendant i.e., 6 O.S.No.8376/2014 www.trynbuyindia.com. The defendant functions on a model wherein its customers place purchase orders for various products from time to time. The defendant in the process of undertaking to deliver the same to the door steps of the customer, approached the plaintiff in the early 2013 to avail its courier/ shipment service offered by it for delivery of the products of the defendant to its customers till February 2014. The plaintiff was raising the invoices on the defendant for the shipments services rendered by it on a monthly basis and the plaintiff was paying all legitimate invoices as per the mutual Agreement. As per the mutual Agreement, the plaintiff has to courier/ ship the packed consignments received from the defendant and deliver it to its customers without delay and without any damage to the consignment. In such an event only, the defendant is liable to pay the invoice amount to the plaintiff. If the plaintiff delivers the consignments received from the defendant to its customers with delay or if there were any damage or tamper in the consignment during transit, the defendant is not liable to pay the invoice amount.
7
O.S.No.8376/2014
5. The allegations of the defendant against the plaintiff made in the written statement are that from the time the defendant commenced availing the courier service of the plaintiff, the defendant was constantly receiving numerous complaints from its customers that either the consignment is not delivered or delay in delivering the consignments or the delivery of consignments with damage during transit or the consignment's package is opened or tampered. The defendant was regularly intimating these service complaints to the plaintiff with a constant request that the plaintiff should avoid such delay in delivery of consignments or non- delivery of consignments or damage of the consignments or opening and tampering of the packages of the consignments during transit. The defendant has also noticed several errors in the invoices raised by the plaintiff to the defendant including issuance of invoices to the defendant in respect of the consignment sent by the other third parties. In that regard, several meetings were held with the representatives of the plaintiff and the defendant. In one of the such meetings, the plaintiff agreed to address and rectify the said 8 O.S.No.8376/2014 discrepancies. When the plaintiff raised invoices for the month of April 2013 on words, the defendant was in constant communication with the plaintiff regarding the losses suffered by the defendant due to delay in delivery of consignment, non-delivery of consignments, damage of the consignments, opening and tampering of the package of the consignment during transit. At that time, the defendant has also informed the plaintiff about billing discrepancies including over charging. The defendant requested the plaintiff to address and rectify the billing discrepancies pointed out by the defendant and to raise revised invoices. After numerous email exchanges, phone discussions and meetings, it was mutually agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant that the plaintiff would first revise the invoices raised and thereafter, rectifying the billing discrepancies in the said invoices. With regard to the non- delivery or delayed delivery of the consignments, damaged consignments or tampered consignment's packages during transit, it was agreed by the plaintiff that the plaintiff shall bear 60% of the loss suffered by it in securing pack 9 O.S.No.8376/2014 shipments after taking into account the insurance coverage for losses sustained. Accordingly, the revised invoices in respect of secured pack shipment would be raised by the plaintiff and sent to the defendant for payment. The above mutual accepted terms reflects in the email exchanged between the plaintiff and the defendant on 02.01.2014. On 02.01.2014, the defendant emailed the statement of 60% loss suffered by it which has to be covered by the plaintiff. The plaintiff received the said email without demur or objections. The plaintiff was to revise both the invoices for non-secure pack shipment which has billing discrepancies as well as revise the invoices to secure pack shipment after deducting the agreed loss coverage to the extent of 60% as per terms agreed by and the defendant. As per the discussions regarding the over billing/ billing discrepancies for non-secure packs and the 60% reduction on the damaged/ delayed/ tampered/ non-delivered secure pack shipment charges, the plaintiff and the defendant have discussed about the huge loss of business that suffered by the defendant that suffered as a result of the damaged/ 10 O.S.No.8376/2014 delayed/ tampered/ non-delivered secure pack shipment by the plaintiff to the customers of the defendant. At the time of entering into business with the plaintiff, the plaintiff was fully aware that the main business of the defendant was an e-commerce web portal that lets customers sample and purchase various consumer products related to beauty, lifestyle and food, etc. online on the basis of user subscription plan and the delivery of goods purchased online to the customers of the defendant was paramount importance. As a result of the several damaged/ delayed/ tampered/ non-delivered shipment by the plaintiff to the customers of the defendant, the defendant suffered loss of several customers who were unhappy and disgruntled with the shipping service provided by the defendant through the plaintiff resulting in immense business losses being suffered by the defendant. The plaintiff was aware of this serious issue and had agreed that once the over billing/ billing discrepancies for non-delivered secure pack shipment charges issues were involved, for the loss of business suffered by the defendant would also be addressed 11 O.S.No.8376/2014 by both the plaintiff and the defendant. On 09.01.2014, the plaintiff e-mailed the revised bills for the period April 2013 onward for non-secure pack shipment after rectifying the billing discrepancies. However, the plaintiff failed to revise the secure pack shipment invoice amounts by deducting 60% as per mutual agreement between the parties.
6. It is further alleged by the defendant that as per the mutual understanding between the plaintiff and the defendant expressly agreed to and reduced in writing in the E-mails date 02.01.2014, the plaintiff ought to have been revised the secured pack shipment invoice amounts for Rs.4,60,374/- by deducting it by 60% . But, the plaintiff has not did so. It appears that the plaintiff has gone back on the terms mutually agreed to in writing on 02.01.2014. As per the defendant, the total value of the invoices raised by the plaintiff is Rs.4,60,374/- and not Rs.4,60,664/- as stated by the plaintiff in the plaint. The plaintiff has not only gone back on the mutual understanding and terms arrived at by the plaintiff and the defendant, but also the plaintiff has not honored its commitment to bear 60% loss 12 O.S.No.8376/2014 on the damaged/ delayed/ tampered/ non- delivered secured pack shipment charges as agreed. In response to the receipt of the aforesaid invoices, the defendant sent an E-mail dated 12.06.2014 informing the plaintiff that the aforesaid invoices were for the amounts that did not accounted for the losses sustained by the defendant, but they are after deducting the losses suffered by the defendant on account of the deficiency of service provided by the plaintiff, in delivering package/ parcels to the customers of the defendant, which was to the extent of Rs.16,67,294/-. The plaintiff was due and liable to pay to the defendant a sum of Rs.16,67,294/-. After deducting the the total invoice amount of Rs.4,60,374/-, the plaintiff is liable to pay Rs.12,06,920/- to the defendant for the loss suffered by the defendant. The plaintiff despite knowing the said fact has issued the Legal Notice dated 01.09.2014 calling upon the defendant to pay Rs.4,60,664/- to the plaintiff along with interest at the rate of 34% per annum within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said notice. On 11.10.2014, the defendant has replied to it claiming 13 O.S.No.8376/2014 that the plaintiff is liable to pay Rs.12,06,920/- to the defendant and calling upon the plaintiff to pay the same to defendant together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from 12.06.2014 till its payment within 15 days from the date of receipt of the said reply notice. On 13.10.2014, the plaintiff has received the said reply notice. Despite the receipt of the reply notice of the defendant, the plaintiff has not bothered to respond to the same and has falsely alleged in the plaint that the defendant has not issued any reply to the Legal Notice dated 01.09.2014. The plaintiff has thus not placed the true facts and circumstances and has raised a false and an untenable claim before this Hon'ble Court. The plaintiff has retracted on the mutual written Agreement arrived at on 02.01.2014 between the plaintiff and the defendant wherein the plaintiff had specifically agreed to revise the invoice amounts in question to account for the damages and loss on secure pack shipment after deducting the agreed loss coverage to the extent of 60%. As per the said agreed terms, the plaintiff is liable to pay the defendant a sum of 14 O.S.No.8376/2014 Rs.12,06,920/-. The plaintiff is also liable to pay penal interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the said amount from 12.06.2014 till its payment. Therefore, the total liability of the plaintiff to pay to the defendant is Rs.13,95,794/- along with current and future interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of counter claim to the date of its payment.
7. The plaintiff filed written statement to the counter claim of the defendant denying the allegations made by the defendant against the plaintiff and its liability to pay the counter claim amount to the defendant. The defences of the plaintiff are that as per Clause 8 of the Agreement entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff Company will do its best to deliver the consignments within stipulated time limit. However, the plaintiff Company is not responsible for any loss incurred due to delay in delivery for any reason whatsoever. The plaintiff has delivered the consignments to the customer of the defendant in time. The defendant has created a concocted story in order to gain wrongful gain. The plaintiff has taken extra care in 15 O.S.No.8376/2014 delivering the consignments to the customers of the defendant in time and did the same too. The plaintiff has delivered the consignments as per the address provided by the defendant. But, the defendant in order to escape from the liability as agreed upon to make payment in time as created the story with an intention to harm the reputation of the plaintiff. Though, the plaintiff was continuously following with the defendant requesting to clear the outstanding dues for the services rendered by the plaintiff, the defendant has not chosen to clear the payment of the payments of the plaintiff. The defendant gave evasive answers to the representatives of the plaintiff whenever they approached the defendant for payment. On 02.01.2014, the defendant sent a Mail to the plaintiff to revise the invoices raised by the plaintiff. Considering the request of the defendant, in order to maintain good business relationship with the defendant, the plaintiff revised the invoices by giving waiver on the outstanding amount on goodwill and forwarded the same through Mail dated 09.01.2014 requesting to acknowledge the receipt of 16 O.S.No.8376/2014 the invoices. As per revised invoices, the outstanding due from the defendant to the plaintiff was Rs.4,60,374/-. But, the defendant after receiving the revised invoices from the plaintiff has not chosen to clear the payment due to the plaintiff. The defendant refused to make payment to the plaintiff. The defendant has opted for the secure pack service for the shipments booked by the defendant to be delivered to its customers. Such consignments were completely sealed with secure packs and they cannot be opened or tampered at the time of its delivery. The defendant sent an E-mail dated 02.01.2014 to the plaintiff stating that 60% loss suffered by it to be recovered by the plaintiff on secured pack shipment. The plaintiff is not liable for such loss suffered by the defendant. The defendant was raising unnecessary issues on pending due amount in order to escape from its liability of making payment to the plaintiff. Again on 20.01.2014. the plaintiff has sent revised invoices through E-mail and the defendant has acknowledged the same. The plaintiff is nothing to do with the business of the defendant with its customers. As 17 O.S.No.8376/2014 per Clause 16 of the Agreement, the defendant agreed to make payment to the plaintiff for the charges of couriering of the consignments of the defendant as per the rates agreed upon and detailed so that in the contract specifically various slabs of weight, time of pick up, point of pick up, contact persons, etc., within 15 days from the date of billing being submitted to the defendant. The defendant also agreed to pay service tax prevailing at the time of booking, payments to the plaintiff by the defendant. The plaintiff holds the right to claim interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the defendant for any payment made after 15 days credit period. On 12.06.2014, the defendant sent an E-mail informing the plaintiff about the accountability of the invoices sent to the defendant to clear the payments. When the defendant failed to make payment of outstanding dues of the plaintiff, the plaintiff issued the Legal Notice to the defendant to clear the outstanding dues as per the terms and conditions of the contract. The defendant has not responded to the same. There is no cause of action to the counter claim. Hence, prayed to dismiss the counter 18 O.S.No.8376/2014 claim.
8. Based on the above pleadings of the parties, the following Issues are framed.
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that defendant is due of Rs.4,60,664/- towards the services provided by them ?
2. Whether the defendant proves that the plaintiff is due of Rs.13,95,794/- towards the damage and loss on secure pack shipment as per the mutual agreement dated 02.01.2014 ?
3. Whether the plaintiff has paid the proper Court fee ?
4. Whether the plaintiff is entitle for the decree as prayed for ?
5. Whether the defendant is entitle for the counter claim as prayed for ?
6. What decree or order ?
9. To prove the above Issues, the plaintiff has produced the oral evidences of its Zonal Admin Manager and HR Regional Manager by name T.S.Ramamurthy as PW1. He has also 19 O.S.No.8376/2014 produced the documentary evidences Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. On behalf of the defendant, the Director and Chief Executive Officer and Authorized Representative of the defendant by name Biraja Swain is examined as DW1. He has produced the documentary evidences Ex.D3 to Ex.D10. During cross- examination of PW1, Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 are got marked through confrontation on behalf of the defendant.
10. Heard the arguments of the learned Counsels for the plaintiff and the defendant. The learned Counsel for the defendant has relied the following judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court :-
i. In the case between Jitendra Kumar Khan & others V/s Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd. & others [(2013) 8 SCC 769].
ii. In the case between Central England Water Transport Corporation Ltd. & another V/s Brojo Nath Ganguly & another [(1986) 3 SCC 156].
11. Perused the materials available on record.
12. Based on the oral and documentary evidences available on record, my answers to the above issues are as follows;20
O.S.No.8376/2014 Issue No.1 : Partly in the Affirmative, Issue No.2 : In the Negative, Issue No.3 : In the Affirmative, Issue No.4 : Partly in the Affirmative, Issue No.5 : In the Negative, Issue No.6 : As per final order for the following;
REASONS
13. ISSUES No.1 AND 2 :- The findings on these Issues are inter-related. Therefore, they are taken together for consideration.
The burden to prove Issue No.1 is upon the plaintiff. To prove Issue No.1, the plaintiff has produced the oral evidences of its Zonal Admin Manager and HR Regional Manager by name T.S.Ramamurthy as PW1. He has filed his affidavit by way examination-in-chief. In para 2 to 11 of the said affidavit, he reiterated the averments made in para 3 to 12 in the plaint. In support of his oral evidences, he has produced the documentary evidences Ex.P1 to Ex.P15. Among them, Ex.P1 is the Letter of Authority, Ex.P2 is the notarized copy of the Fresh Certificate of Incorporation Consequent on Change of Name, Ex.P3 is the certified copy of the True copy of the Resolution passed at the Meeting of the 21 O.S.No.8376/2014 Board of Directors of the plaintiff Company held on 10.05.2016, Ex.P4 is the Sale Contract Form, Ex.P5 to Ex.P10 are the Invoices, Ex.P11 is the Statement of Accounts along with Certificate under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, Ex.P12 is the office copy of the Legal Notice issued by the plaintiff to the defendant, Ex.P13 is the Postal Receipt, Ex.P14 is the Postal Acknowledgment and Ex.P15 is the E-mail Correspondence.
14. The burden to prove Issue No.2 is upon the defendant. To prove Issue No.2, the defendant has produced the oral evidences of its Director and Chief Executive Officer and the Authorized Representative by name Biraja Swain as DW1. He filed his affidavit by way of examination-in-chief wherein, he has also reiterated the written statement averments. In support of his oral evidences, he has produced the documentary evidences Ex.D3 to Ex.D10. Among them, Ex.D3 is the office copy of the Reply issued by the defendant to the plaintiff, Ex.D4 is the Postal Receipt, Ex.D5 is the Postal Acknowledgment, Ex.D6 is the Track Consignment Report, Ex.D7 is the E-mail Communication dated 22 O.S.No.8376/2014 10.01.2014 and 24.12.2013, Ex.D8 is the Certificate under Section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act, Ex.D9 is the Extracts of Minutes of the Meetings of Boards of the Directors of the defendant and Ex.D10 is the E-mail Letter dated 12.06.2014 and its annexed document. During cross- examination of PW1, Ex.D1 and Ex.D2 are marked on confrontation to PW1 on behalf of the defendant. They are the E-mail Correspondences between the plaintiff and the defendant.
15. PW1 and DW1 are cross-examined by their respective adverse parties. Certain relevant facts are admitted by PW1 and DW1 during their cross-examination. DW1 has admitted in his cross-examination that all the terms discussed between the plaintiff and the defendant were reduced into a document called as Agreement; Ex.P4 is the said Agreement entered into between the plaintiff; the plaintiff and he signed the said document; the delivery of the products booked by the customers of the defendant Company through its web portal was the duty of the plaintiff; as per the terms of the contract; the defendant shall pack the product and the plaintiff shall 23 O.S.No.8376/2014 pick up it for its delivery; after delivery of such goods by the plaintiff, the plaintiff shall issue the invoices and there is no contract between the plaintiff and the customers of the defendant. PW1 has admitted in his cross-examination that when the defendant approached the plaintiff, the contract was entered into between them by understanding the requirement of the defendant. From the above admitted facts, it appears that Ex.P4 is a contract entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant with regard to the delivery of products booked by the customers of the defendant through its web portal to its customers.
16. It appears from the pleadings of the defendant in the written statement and the oral evidences of DW1 deposed in his examination-in-chief that the liability of the defendant to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.4,60,374/- is an admitted fact. Under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, the admitted fact need not be proved.
17. On perusal of the pleadings of the plaintiff and the defendant in its entirety and also the oral evidences of PW1 24 O.S.No.8376/2014 and DW1, it appears that the plaintiff was delivering the goods of the defendant to its customers as agreed in Ex.P4. DW1 has admitted in his cross-examination that before April 2013, the defendant has cleared 3-4 invoices of the plaintiff. It is admitted fact that the plaintiff has raised the invoices bearing Nos.900515637, 9000545898, 9000671326, 9000689062, 9000714158 and 9000729936. Ex.P5 is Invoice No.900515637, Ex.P6 is Invoice No.9000545898, Ex.P7 is Invoice No.9000671326, Ex.P8 is Invoice No.9000689062, Ex.P9 is Invoice No.9000729936 and Ex.P10 is Invoice No.9000714158. Ex.P11 is the Statement of Account containing the above Invoices. The total amount claimed under the above invoices is Rs.4,20,453/- which is the less amount than the claim of the plaintiff. As per Ex.P11, the total outstanding is Rs.4,60,664/-. Therefore, the total sum of the invoices and the outstanding mentioned in Ex.P11 does not tally each other.
18. On perusal of the pleadings of the defendant in its entirety, the oral evidences of DW1 and the contents of Ex.D10, it appears that in furtherance of E-mail 25 O.S.No.8376/2014 communication of the defendant to the plaintiff dated 02.01.2014, the plaintiff has issued revised invoices. As per the pleadings of the plaintiff, the revised invoices amount is Rs.4,60,664/-. As per the defendant, it is for Rs.4,60,374/-. But, as per the contents of Ex.P11, the invoices amount is Rs.4,60,664/-. PW1 admitted in his cross-examination is that the accounts department of the plaintiff Company has prepared Ex.P11; there is no evidence from the plaintiff to show that the statement of account Ex.P11 sent to the defendant and confirmed by them; the statement of account discloses the invoice amount and the payment; the plaintiff has not maintain the part payment made by the defendant in the plaint and the defendant requested the plaintiff to rectify the discrepancies and to resend the revised bills. PW1 has further deposed that the plaintiff has sent the revised bills. But, the amount covered under the revised invoices doe not tally with the amount mentioned in Ex.P11. Therefore, from the admitted fact, the plaintiff has proved the liability of the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.4,60,374/- to the plaintiff out of its claim amount.
26
O.S.No.8376/2014
19. The defendant in his written statement has set off the said amount of Rs.4,60,374/- from its counter claim of Rs.16,67,294/-. On perusal of the written statement averments, there is no mention of the details about the basis to quantify the said amount of Rs.16,67,294/- to claim from the plaintiff. DW1 has deposed that the document annexed to Ex.D10 is the basis for the said claim. He has admitted that the said document was prepared by the defendant. But, there are no basis for the said calculation. Therefore, the said claim of the defendant is appears to be an imaginary claim without supporting with any documents.
20. The contention of the defendant in the written statement and the oral evidences of DW1 in his examination-in-chief is that there was damage/ delay/ tempered/ non-delivery of secure pack shipment by the plaintiff to the customers of the defendant and thereby, the defendant has suffered loss. DW1 has admitted in his cross-examination that the goods sent to the customers of the defendant were free samples and not sent for any consideration. Such being the facts and 27 O.S.No.8376/2014 circumstances, it can be inferred that the defendant has not sustained any monetary loss even if there was damage/ delay/ tempered/ non-delivery of secure pack shipment by the plaintiff to the customers of the defendant.
21. The contention of the defendant taken in the written statement and in the oral evidences of DW1 is that the plaintiff has not given the documents for proof of delivery of goods to its customers despite repeated requests and demands and therefore, there are no documents to show that there was damage/ delay/ tempered/ non-delivery of secure pack shipment by the plaintiff to the customers of the defendant. DW1 has admitted in his cross-examination that the web portal of the defendant has the option to raise the complaint by the customers. The defendant has not produced the documents with regard to the complaint raised by its customers through web portal. He further deposed that the defendant received the complaints from the customers through telephone calls and not through any written communication. Except the oral testimony of DW1, the defendant has not produced any other evidences to prove 28 O.S.No.8376/2014 that there was damage/ delay/ tempered/ non-delivery of secure pack shipment by the plaintiff to the customers of the defendant. DW1 admitted in his cross-examination that in Ex.D1, Ex.D2, Ex.D7 and Ex.D10, the defendant has not stated anything about non-delivery of the goods to the customers of the defendant, the goods were tampered or delivery was delayed and for the first time in the reply notice, he has taken such contention. If there were any such short falls from the plaintiff in delivery of the goods of the defendant to its customers, the defendant would have claim the same at the earliest point of time when the plaintiff issued the invoices and not at the time of the issuing the reply notice to the notice of the plaintiff. It is not the case of the defendant that when the plaintiff was not giving the proof of delivery, the defendant has demanded the plaintiff to give proof of delivery.
22. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff has drawn the following terms and conditions of Ex.P4 :-
8. The Company will do its best to deliver the consignments within the specified time limit; however the Company is not 29 O.S.No.8376/2014 responsible for any loss incurred due to delay in delivery for any reason whatsoever.
12. The Company will compensate the customer to the extent of such amount as decided and made good by the insurance Company for loss of consignment, if additional payment for special insurance risk coverage is made by the customer at the time of booking.
Claims will be settled at the earliest provided the customer furnishes all supporting as required by the insurance company within the stipulated time.
15. The Company agrees to provided proof of deliveries to the customer against the consignment booked and delivered; however not providing of such proof shall not be a pre-condition for (holding the) payment of the Company by the customer.
23. Admittedly, through an E-mail dated 02.01.2024, the defendant requested the plaintiff claiming 60% off for secure packs and send the revised bill for which, the plaintiff replied agreeing to bare 50% of the dent on the insurance amount and the secured pack pouch costs. It is further admitted fact that the revised invoices Ex.P6 to Ex.P10 were issued by the plaintiff to the defendant subsequent to the above E-mail 30 O.S.No.8376/2014 correspondences. Thereafter, the defendant made counter claim from the plaintiff without any basis. The defendant has not produced any reliable and cogent evidences to prove that there was damage/ delay/ tempered/ non-delivery of secure pack shipment by the plaintiff to the customers of the defendant.
24. In the judgment relied by the learned Counsel for the defendant in the case between Jitendra Kumar Khan and others V/s Peerless General Finance and Investment Company Ltd., & others [(2013) 8 SCC 769], Hon'ble Supreme Court held that "The concept of equitable set-off is founded on the fundamental principles of equity, justice and good conscience. The discretion rests with the Court to adjudicate upon it and the said discretion has to be exercised in an equitable manner."
25. To seek the principles of the equity, justice and good conscience, the party who seeks it shall approach the Court with clean hands and with justifiable claim. As aforesaid, the counter claim of the defendant is without any basis. It 31 O.S.No.8376/2014 appears from the facts admitted by DW1 during cross- examination that the goods sent by the defendant to its customers through the plaintiff were free samples and not for sent for any consideration. There are no evidences to proved the allegations of the defendant that there was damage/ delay/ tempered/ non-delivery of secure pack shipment by the plaintiff to the customers of the defendant. It is not the case of the defendant that due to any lapses on the part of the plaintiff, the defendant has sustained any loss in its business which can be quantified through money. Therefore, the claim of set of and counter claim of the defendant are not justifiable.
26. The learned Counsel for the defendant has relied judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case between Central England Water Transport Corporation Ltd. & another V/s Brojo Nath Ganguly & another [(1986) 3 SCC 156]. In the said judgment, the learned Counsel for the defendant has relied the principles of law laid with regard to the the vide contract when consent to an Agreement is obtained by coercion, fraud, undue influence or misrepresentation. The 32 O.S.No.8376/2014 arguments of the learned Counsel for the defendant is that Ex.P4 is the a void contract because, the defendant has no right of negotiation of the terms and conditions of Ex.P4, the defendant has no power to bargain with the conditions and the terms and conditions of Ex.P4 are one sided. This line of argument of the defendant cannot be accepted because there are no such defence by the defendant in the written statement that Ex.P4 is void contract for the aforesaid reasons. On the other hand, it appears from the admissions of DW1 during cross-examination that Ex.P4 was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant with free will. For the above reasons, the plaintiff has proved that the defendant is due to pay Rs.4,60,374/- to the plaintiff towards the service provide by the plaintiff and the defendant has not proved that the plaintiff is due to pay Rs.13,95,794/- towards the damage and loss on secure pack shipment as per mutual Agreement dated 02.01.2014. Hence, I answer Issue No.1 Partly in the Affirmative and Issue No.2 in the Negative.
27. ISSUE No.3 :- The defendant has contended in the written statement that the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is 33 O.S.No.8376/2014 not properly. It appears from the valuation slip produced by the plaintiff that the plaintiff has paid Court of Rs.30,836/-. The suit claim is Rs.4,60,664/-. The plaintiff ought to have been paid the Court fee under Section 21 R/w Schedule-I of the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act. The ad- valorem fees payable by the plaintiff was Rs.13,818/-. Therefore, the Court fee paid by the plaintiff is proper. Hence, I answer Issue No.3 in the Affirmative.
28. ISSUE No.4 :- This suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs.4,60,664/- together with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of suit till the date of realization and Court costs. For the reasons stated in issue No.1, the plaintiff has proved that the defendant is due to pay Rs.4,60,374/- towards the service provided by the plaintiff to the defendant. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled for the said suit claim from the defendant.
29. With regard to the rate of interest on the suit claim, as per the terms and conditions agreed between the plaintiff and the defendant at Ex.P4, the plaintiff is entitled for interest at 34 O.S.No.8376/2014 the rate of 24% p.a. on the claim of the plaintiff from the defendant. Hence, I answer Issue No.4 partly in the Affirmative.
30. ISSUE No.5 :- In the written statement, the defendant has made set off Rs.4,60,374/- and made counter claim of Rs.13,95,794/- from the plaintiff. For the reasons stated in issue No.2, the defendant has not proved that the plaintiff is due to pay Rs.13,95,794/- towards the damage and loss on secure pack shipment as per the mutual Agreement dated 02.01.2014. Thereofre, the defendant is not entitled for the counter claim for as prayed for. Hence, I answer Issue No.5 in the Negative.
31. ISSUE No.6 :- In view of the findings on Issues No.4 and 5, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be partly decreed with costs and the counter claim of the defendant is liable to be dismissed. Hence, I proceed to pass the following;
ORDERS The suit of the plaintiff is hereby partly decreed with costs.
35
O.S.No.8376/2014 The defendant is hereby directed to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.4,60,374/-
lakhs (Rupees Four Lakhs Sixty Thousand Three Hundred Seventy Four only) together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the date of suit till the date of realization.
The counter claim of the defendant is hereby dismissed.
Draw the decree accordingly.
(Typed by the Stenographer in the Court computer on my direct dictation, printout taken, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open court today on this the 22nd day of January 2026).
(VEDAMOORTHY.B.S) XXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru.
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined for Plaintiff :-
PW1 : T.S.Rama Murthy.
List of documents exhibited for Plaintiff :-
Ex.P1 : Letter of Authority,
Ex.P2 : Notarized copy of Certificate of
Incorporation,
Ex.P3 : Certified copy Meeting of the Board of
Directors,
36
O.S.No.8376/2014
Ex.P4 : Sale Contract Form,
Ex.P5 to 10 : Invoices,
Ex.P11 : Statement of Accounts,
Ex.P12 : Office copy of the Legal Notice,
Ex.P13 : Postal Receipt,
Ex.P14 : Postal Acknowledgment,
Ex.P15 : E-mail Correspondence.
List of witnesses examined for the Defendant :-
DW1 : Biraja Swain.
List of documents exhibited for the Defendant :-
Ex.D1 & 2 : Email Correspondences,
Ex.D3 : Office copy of the Reply,
Ex.D4 : Postal Receipt,
Ex.D5 : Postal Acknowledgment,
Ex.D6 : Track Consignment Report,
Ex.D7 : E-mail Communication,
Ex.D8 : Certificate,
Ex.D9 : Extracts of Minutes of the Meetings of
Boards of the Directors,
Ex.D10 : E-mail Letter. Digitally signed by
VEDAMOORTHY B
VEDAMOORTHY S
BS
Date: 2026.01.22
17:51:48 +0530
(VEDAMOORTHY.B.S)
XXXI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bengaluru.