Delhi District Court
Suit No. : 362/09 vs Swaran Singh & Anrs Reported As on 27 May, 2014
IN THE COURT OF SH. PITAMBER DUTT; ADJ (CENTRAL)11,DELHI
Suit No. : 362/09
Unique Case ID : 02401C5133852004
M/s. Uflex Limited
Earlier known as
M/s FCL Technologies & Products Ltd.
Registered office
305, Third Floor,
Bhanot Corner, Pamposh Enclave
Greater Kailash-1, New Delhi
......P l a i n t i f f
Versus
New India Assurance Co. Ltd.
Branch Office:
3, Arya Samaj Road,
Karol Bagh,
New Delhi-110 005 .........D e f e n d a n t
Date of Institution of Suit : 19.03.2004
Date when reserved for orders : 13.05.2014
Date of Decision : 27.05.2014
JUDGMENT
1 Vide this judgment I shall decide a suit for recovery of Rs.15,64,815/- along with pendente lite and future interest file by the plaintiff against the defendant. The brief fact necessitated in filing the present suit are given as under:-
2 The plaintiff is company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. It is engaged in the business of manufacturing Polyestar Chips Suit No. 362/09 Page no. 1 of 18 commonly known as "PET CHIPS". The plaintiff had taken a Special Declaration Policy (Cargo) being Policy No. 2131100200912/768 dated 13.02.1998 for the insurance of consignment of Polyester Chips for a value of Rs.129 Crores. The said policy was valid w.e.f 15.2.98 to 14.2.99 and the plaintiff had paid the premium of Rs.13,78,234/- for the said policy.
3 The plaintiff had dispatched a consignment of approximately 9,728 kg's of Polyester Chips on 15.09.1998 vide GR No. 1018 and 1019. The goods were packed in Jumbo Polythene knitted bags and dispatched through a reputed carrier namely M/s. Malik Road Carriers in truck No. UP-78N-3941 from its factory at Malanpur, Gwalior. The truck was duly covered with water- proof tarpaulin. During the transit from Malanpur to NOIDA there was heavy rainfall / cloud burst, due to which the said consignment was badly damaged as the rain water seeped in due to which goods had become totally wet and incapable of being used for manufacture of films and the entire consignment was rejected by the consignee.
4 The plaintiff immediately informed the defendant on 18.09.98 about the damage suffered by it. The defendant appointed a surveyor M/s. H.R. Choudhary & Co. who visited the site and conducted the survey of the damaged goods on 19.09.1998. The said surveyor recorded the statement of the driver and took sample from the said consignment and got it tested from the laboratory of the consignee. As per the test conducted at the laboratory of the consignee, all the samples, were found to have moisture content of more than 0.8%. As per the report of the surveyor all the bags were found drenched with water and attributed cause of loss was due to rain water in transit. The plaintiff fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy and has not committed any breach of warranties.
Suit No. 362/09 Page no. 2 of 18 5 The plaintiff wrote several letters, reminders and officers of the plaintiff
personally visited the office of the defendant on various occasions but they chose not to act upon the representations. The defendant after a lapse of more than 4 and ½ years vide letter dated 20.03.2003, repudiated the claim of the plaintiff on false and frivolous grounds. The defendant also got the survey done from the other surveyor but the said report was not given to the plaintiff despite demand. The defendant malafidly repudiated the claim of the plaintiff and the said repudiation is not valid in the eyes of law, therefore, plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 9,42,660/- from the defendant alongwith interest.
6 Pursuant to the summons, defendant appeared and filed its written statement taking preliminary objection that plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands, that plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit; the plaint has not been signed and verified by the competent and authorized person; that the plaintiff has committed flagrant breaches of the terms and conditions of the policy, dis-entitling them from any compensation under the Insurance contract.
7 On merit it is stated that defendant issued Special Declaration Marine Policy (Cargo) bearing No. 2131100200912/768 dated 13.02.1998 for Rs. 129 crores in favour of M/s. Flex Chemicals Ltd. The plaintiffs stated to have imported 104 tons of special grade Pet Chipa with antistatic properties from Japan in 1997, out of which approximately 34 tons were utilised for manufacturing antistatic film for special applications. The remaining 70 tons of Pet Chips required reprocessing / improvement and as such stated to have been sent to their unit at Malanpur from NOIDA for purpose of reprocessing and these were allegedly being transported back in various trucks through M/s. Malik Road Carrier, Ghaziabad vide Grs dated 15.09.1998 respectively Suit No. 362/09 Page no. 3 of 18 and delivered at the premises of M/s. Flex Industries Ltd. at NOIDA, UP on 16.09.1998, when all the consignments were allegedly found to be drenched in rain water and became unusable on account of leakage of water into the trucks through holes in the tarpaulins used by the transporter.
8 The plaintiff gave intimation dated 17.09.1998 that their consignment vide GR No. 1018 and 1019 dated 15.09.1998 by truck No. UP-78N-3941 reached in a wet condition on 16.09.1998. On receipt of intimation, the defendant appointed M/s. H.R. Choudhary & Co Pvt Ltd. as surveyor to inquire into and survey the loss, who inspected the damaged goods and submitted their reports dated 12.08.1999. The surveyor reported that the consignment packed in 14 Jumbo bags was badly drenched in water and opined that rain water had entered into the consignment on account of holes in the tarpaulin sheet used to cover the truck. It is averred that while processing the claim defendant found some intriguing fact namely, that all the consignment sent for reprocessing for Malanpur and allegedly transported back to the premises of M/s. Flex Industries Ltd. at NOIDA were similarly found in extremely wet condition and claims were lodged. It is also found that the trucks were not covered with water proof tarpaulin as per the requirement of the policy, and the tarpaulin sheets were in fact found out with holes. The defendant consequently held a meeting with the surveyors in respect of different consignment, who submitted their joint report dated 24.03.2000. Thereafter, vide letter dated 25.07.2000 sought clarification from the plaintiff as to why improper tarpaulin was used to cover the consignment. The plaintiff did not give any reply to the said notice.
9 The defendant had some doubt about the authenticity of the name and address of the transporter and therefore, they appointed Sh. Khushi Ram as Suit No. 362/09 Page no. 4 of 18 investigator who made inquiries and submitted his report dated 30.09.2002 to the effect that no such transporter was existed at the given address. It is further averred that defendant has reason to believe that 70 tons of a Chips were not at all sent for reprocessing and a false claim has been lodged by the plaintiff on the basis of seepage of water into these consignments. It is denied that truck was duly covered with waterproof tarpaulin. It is stated that goods got drenched solely on account of acts of omission and commission and lack of care and willful breach of mandatory warranties under the policy. It is denied that defendant had repudiated the claim in a malafide manner. It is denied that defendant is liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff as claimed. All other averment have also been denied. It is prayed that suit be dismissed with cost.
10 The Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement whereby reiterated the averment made in the plaint and denied the averment made in the written statement.
11 On the basis of the pleadings of the parties from the Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 23.11.2004 framed the following issues for adjudication:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of the suit amount alongwith costs and interest, as prayed in the plaint?
OPP
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of the preliminary objection taken in the written statement by the defendants?OPD
3. Relief.
Suit No. 362/09 Page no. 5 of 18 12 In order to prove its case, plaintiff has examined Sh. Basant Kumar,
Deputy General Manager, Accounts as PW-1 who reiterated the averment made in the plaint in his examination in chief. PW-1 exhibited document as Ex. PW-1/1 to 17 but being the photocopy these were de-exhibited and marked as Mark A to Q. Letter dated 13.11.2006 as Ex. PW-1/18. PW-1 has been throughly cross-examined by ld. counsel for the defendant.
13 In order to answer the claim of the plaintiff, defendant has examined Sh. Amit Mishra as DW-1 who reiterated the averment made in the written statement in his examination in chief. DW-1 exhibited original GR 1019 as DW-1/1, original damage certificate Ex. DW-1/2, Survey report Ex. DW-1/3, Letter of Repudation Ex. DW-1/4, Legal notice dated 5.11.2003 Ex. DW-1/5 and reply as Ex. DW-1/6 and joint Survey report as Mark A and Investigation report as Mark B. 14 The defendant has also examined Sh. Hans Choudhary, Surveyor as DW-2 who proved his survey report Ex. DW-1/3. He also referred joint survey report dated 24.3.2000 Mark A. Both these witnesses have been throughly cross-examined by ld. counsel for the plaintiff.
15 I have heard both the ld. Counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings, evidence and documents and other material placed on record. My issue wise findings are as under:-
16 ISSUE NO. 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of the suit amount alongwith costs and interest, as prayed in the plaint?OPP The plaintiff has taken a plea that it had taken a Marine Insurance Suit No. 362/09 Page no. 6 of 18 policy for a sum of Rs.1,29 crores on 13.02.1998 from the defendant. The said policy was valid from 15.02.1998 to 14.02.1999. During the continuation of the said policy, plaintiff transported Polyster Chip on 15.09.1998 from Malanpur, Gwalior to its consignee M/s. Flex India Ltd. at NOIDA through M/s. Malik Road Carrier vide GR's No. 1008 to 1009 dated 15.09.1998. There was heavy rain in the transit due to which the said consignment got damaged and same was rejected by the consignee. The plaintiff has further taken a plea that it informed the defendant about the damage sustained by them immediately on 18.9.1998, who appointed M/s. H.R.Choudhary as surveyor to assess the quantum of damages. The plaintiff supplied all the necessary documents as demanded by the surveyor but the defendant repudiated the claim of the plaintiff vide letter dated 20.03.2003. As per the plaintiff repudiation of its claim by the defendant vide letter dated 20.03.2003 is not valid in the eyes of law and same has been done malafidely.
17 The defendant has not disputed that plaintiff had taken a marine policy. It has also not disputed the validity of the said policy. The defendant has also not disputed that it received an intimation from the plaintiff on 17.09.1998 that their consignment vide GR's No. 1018 & 1019 dated 15.09.1998 reached in wet condition. The defendant has taken a plea that while processing the claim of the plaintiff it found peculiar fact that all the consignment sent for reprocessing to Malanpur were found in extreme wet condition. As per the defendant, plaintiff had committed deliberate and willful breaches of the terms and conditions of the policy which disentitled them from claiming or receiving any compensation from the defendant.
18 In order to prove their case, both the parties have led their respective evidence.
Suit No. 362/09 Page no. 7 of 18 19 An examination of the pleadings and evidence led on record clearly shows that plaintiff had taken a Marine Insurance Policy No.
2131100200912/768 dated 13.12.1998 from the defendant for a total assured sum of Rs. 1,29 crores for which plaintiff paid premium of Rs.13,12,583/-. The said policy commenced from 15.02.1988 and was valid upto 14.02.1999. During the continuation of the said policy, plaintiff dispatched a consignment of Polyester Chip to M/s. Flex Industries Ltd. vide GR No. 1018 and 1019 dated 15.09.1998. During transit those goods were damaged due to heavy rainfall, consequently the consignee rejected the goods and intimation of the damages being suffered by the plaintiff was given to the defendant who appointed M/s. H.R. Choudhary & Co. to assess the loss suffered by the plaintiff.
20 The claim put forth by the plaintiff was repudiated by the defendant vide its letter dated 20.03.2003 Ex.DW-1/4 on the ground namely: (A) Breach of warranty with regard to engaging of reputed carriers. (B) Breach of warranty regarding use of water proof tarpaulin to cover the truck, inasmuch as old worn out tarpaulins with holes were used. (C) Delay and inaction on plaintiffs part deprived them of their recovery rights against the transporter and (D) Reasonable doubts and suspicion regarding the genuineness of the claim put forward by plaintiff.
21 The defendant has repudiated the claim of the plaintiff vide letter dated 20.03.2003 Ex.DW-1/4 on various grounds. Let me examine each of the ground of repudiation of claim of the plaintiff by the defendant separately.
(A) Breach of warranty with regard to engaging of reputed carriers I. The defendant rejected the claim of the plaintiff on the Suit No. 362/09 Page no. 8 of 18 ground that plaintiff had committed breach of warranty by not engaging a reputed carrier. As per the defendant they carried out investigation which suggested that no such transporter by the name of M/s. Mallik Road Carrier ever existed at the given address. The plaintiff has controverted the said plea of the defendant and claimed that it had engaged a reputed carrier for transporting the consignment from Malanpur to Noida.
II. The defendant has repudiated the claim of the plaintiff on the ground that plaintiff had not engaged the reputed carrier for the consignment thus committed breach of the warranty of the policy. The onus to prove the fact that plaintiff committed breach of warranty by not engaging a reputed carrier is upon the defendant. It was incumbent upon the defendant to prove on record by leading cogent evidence that plaintiff had failed to engage a reputed carrier for transporting the goods thus committed breach of warranty of policy. The defendant, however, has failed to place any material on record which can show or suggest that plaintiff had not engaged a reputed carrier or that M/s. Mallik Road Carrier was a fictitious entity. III. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled "National Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Swaran Singh & Anrs reported as 2004(3) SCC 297 has held that "The preposition of law is no longer res integra that the person who alleges breach must prove the same. The insurance company is, thus, required to establish the said breach by cogent evidence. In the event the insurance company fails to prove that there has been breach of conditions of policy on the part of the Suit No. 362/09 Page no. 9 of 18 insured, the insurance company cannot be absolved of its liability."
IV. The contract of insurance was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendant vide marine insurance policy. A perusal of policy clearly shows that defendant had not stipulated in the entire insurance policy that plaintiff was required to engage any particular carrier for transporting the goods from one destination to another destination. The only requirement of the policy was that plaintiff should engage a reputed transporter. It does not prescribed the name of any particular transporter through whom the goods were to be transported from one destination to another destination. V. The Defendant has disputed the very existence of the said carrier through whom plaintiff transported the consignment, but defendant has not led any evidence on record which can show or suggest that plaintiff while transporting the goods from Malanpur to NOIDA has not engaged a reputed carrier or that M/s. Mallik Road Carriers through whom the goods were transported by the plaintiff was not in existence. VI. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that defendant has failed to prove on record that plaintiff had not engaged a reputed carrier while transporting the goods. The defendant has thus failed to prove that plaintiff had committed any breach of warranty qua not engaging a reputed carrier. The defendant was thus not justified in repudiating the claim of the plaintiff on this ground.
Suit No. 362/09 Page no. 10 of 18
(B) Breach of warranty regarding use of water proof tarpaulin to
cover the truck, inasmuch as old worn out tarpaulins with holes were used.
I. The second ground for repudiating the claim of the plaintiff is that plaintiff had committed breach of terms and conditions of the policy by not using water proof tarpaulin over the carrier to protect the goods. The plaintiff has controverted the said plea in the corresponding para of the replication. II. An examination of the pleading and the evidence led on record shows that plaintiff had taken a marine insurance policy. The said policy was subject to certain terms and conditions. Warranty No. 5 of the said insurance policy provides that warranted truck to be covered with waterproof tarpaulin and carried by a reputed transporter under clean GR-RR-ARIWAY Bills. The insurance policy obtained by the plaintiff was thus subject to the condition that plaintiff was required to cover the carrier through waterproof tarpaulin during transit.
III. The defendant has taken a plea that tarpaulin used by the carrier while transporting the goods from Malanpur to NOIDA was not waterproof and there were holes in the tarpaulin sheet due to which water seeped inside the consignment and the entire consignment got damaged due to the seepage of water. As per the defendant the plaintiff had committed breach of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, therefore, defendant has rightly repudiated the claim of plaintiff.
Suit No. 362/09 Page no. 11 of 18 IV. To substantiate their plea the defendant has examined Sh. Amit Mishra, Senior Divisional Manager as DW-1 who deposed in para-9 of his in examination in chief that the truck was not covered with waterproof tarpaulin as per the requirement of the policy whereas the tarpaulin sheet were in fact found out with holes. He reiterated the above averment in para-10 in his examination in chief as well. During cross- examination DW-1 deposed that he did not see the tarpaulin which was used by the road carrier. He further deposed that defendant has not filed any photograph showing that the tarpaulin was worn out and had holes.
V. The defendant has also examined Sh. Hans Choudhary, Surveyor as DW-2 who proved the survey report Ex.DW1/3. During cross-examination DW-2 deposed that he had sent photographs of the consignment as well as of truck. He further deposed that he has not mentioned in his survey report Ex. DW-1/3 that tarpaulin sheet used were worn out and having holes. He volunteered that factual position would be more clear in the photograph attached with his survey which are not on record.
VI. The second ground of repudiation of the claim of the plaintiff was that plaintiff had committed breach of warranty by not using water proof tarpaulin to cover the truck and the old worn out tarpaulin with holes were used. The defendant however has not placed any material whatsoever on record to show that the plaintiff had not used water proof tarpaulin or that the tarpaulins used by the carrier was old or having holes.
Suit No. 362/09 Page no. 12 of 18 VII. The defendant claimed that the surveyor reported that rain water had entered into the consignment on account of holes in the tarpaulin sheets. But the survey report Ex. DW-1/3 no where contain any stipulation that the transporter had not used water proof tarpaulins or tarpaulins used by the transporter was old or worn out. As per insurance policy one of the terms and conditions of the said policy was that the trucks used for transportation to be covered with waterproof tarpaulin. The defendant claimed that the tarpaulin used by the carrier was not water proofs and was having holes but defendant has not placed any material on record to substantiate the said plea. The surveyor DW-2 has deposed in his cross-examination that it is not mention in his report that tarpaulin sheets used were worn out and having holes. He volunteered that the factual position would be more clear in the photographs attached with the report which are not not record. The defendant has not placed on record these photographs on record for the reason best known to them. The defendant has thus not placed any material on record on the basis of which it can be concluded that the tarpaulins used by the carrier was having holes or same was worn out. The defendant has thus failed to prove on record that plaintiff has violated the said condition of insurance policy. (C) Delay and inaction on plaintiffs part deprived the defendant of their recovery rights against the transporter I. The onus to prove the above fact was upon the defendant. The plaintiff in the plaint as well as during evidence has Suit No. 362/09 Page no. 13 of 18 categorically averred that the intimation of damages was given to the defendant on 17.09.1998. The DW-1 during examination in chief has admitted that the intimation of loss in respect of claim in suit was received by the defendant on 17.09.1998. The aforesaid testimony of DW-1 clearly shows that there were no delay on the part of the plaintiff which deprived the defendant of their recovery right against the transporter.
II. The plaintiff suffered loss on 16.09.1998 and the intimation of the said loss was conveyed to the defendant on 17.09.1998 as deposed by DW-1 himself. Therefore, there was no delay on the part of the plaintiff in making communication about damage suffered by it. The defendant has not led any evidence which can show or suggest that plaintiff has caused any delay or inaction which deprived them of their right of recovery against the transporter. The defendant has thus failed to prove on record that plaintiff has caused any delay in intimating the loss to the defendant. The defendant was thus not justified in repudiating the claim of the plaintiff on this ground as well.
(D) Reasonable doubts and suspicion regarding the genuineness of the claim put forward by plaintiff.
I. The onus to prove the fact that there was reasonable doubts and suspicion regarding the genuineness of plaintiff's claim, is upon the defendant, however, defendant has not led any evidence whatsoever in this regard. The plaintiff has examined Sh. Basant Kumar as PW-1 in support of its case.
Suit No. 362/09 Page no. 14 of 18 The defendant has carried out extensive cross examination of PW-1 but has not given any suggestion or carried out any cross examination of PW-1 qua the aforesaid plea being taken by the defendant for repudiating the claim of the plaintiff. In the absence of any cross examination or confrontation of PW-1, the plea of the defendant that there was reasonable doubt and suspicion regarding the genuineness of the claim of the plaintiff remained unsubstantiated and unproved.
II. The defendant has thus failed to prove on record that there were reasonable doubts and suspicion regarding the genuineness of the claim put forth by the plaintiff. The defendant could not have repudiated the claim of the plaintiff on this ground as well.
22 In view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered view that defendant has failed to prove on record that plaintiff has committed breach of warranty by not engaging a reputed carrier for transporting goods from one destination to another destination. The defendant has also failed to prove on record that plaintiff had committed any breach of terms and conditions of Insurance policy by not using waterproof tarpaulin to cover the trucks during transportation. The defendant has also failed to prove on record that plaintiff has caused any delay which deprived the defendant of their recovery right against the transporter or that the claim put forth by the plaintiff was not genuine and there was reasonable doubt and suspicion regarding the genuineness of the claim put forth by the plaintiff. The defendant has thus failed to prove on record that plaintiff has violated the essential terms of the contract due to which defendant was justified in repudiating the claim of the Suit No. 362/09 Page no. 15 of 18 plaintiff vide letter of repudiation Ex.DW-1/4. The plaintiff has thus proved on record that defendant has wrongly repudiated their claim, therefore plaintiff is entitled to recover the claim amount alongwith interest. The plaintiff has successfully discharged the onus of issue no. 1, same is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff.
23 ISSUE NO. 2 Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of the preliminary objection taken in the written statement by the defendants?OPD The defendant has taken a plea in the written statement that plaintiff has committed deliberate and willful breach of the terms and conditions and warranty under the policy. They have further taken a plea that claim put forth by the plaintiff is false. The plaintiff has controverted the aforesaid preliminary objection in the corresponding para of the replication.
24 While deciding Issue No. 1, I have already held that defendant has failed to prove on record that plaintiff has committed breach of warranty of insurance policy by not using waterproof tarpaulin over the truck which was in violation of Insurance Policy Ex.PW1/3. However, the plea regarding the reasonable doubt and suspicion regarding the genuineness of the claim put forth by the plaintiff has been.
25 The Defendant has further taken a plea that claim put forth by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. The said averment has been has been controverted by the plaintiff in the corresponding para of the replication.
26 The defendant has taken a plea that present suit has been filed after the prescribed period of limitation. The said objection taken by the defendant in the written statement is not sustainable for the simple reason that defendant Suit No. 362/09 Page no. 16 of 18 repudiated the claim of the plaintiff on 20.03.2003. As per the defendant themselves the suit could have been filed within a period of 12 calender month i.e. up to 20.03.2004. Whereas the instant suit has been filed on 19.03.2004 i.e. within 12 calender month from the date of repudiation of the claim on 20.03.2003. The said objection is therefore, not maintainable.
27 The defendant has also taken a preliminary objection that plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit because the contract of Insurance was entered into by M/s. Flex Chemical Ltd. whereas the present suit has been filed on behalf of the M/s. FCL Technology, therefore suit has not been filed and verified by the competent and authorized person on behalf of the plaintiff. The averment of the aforesaid preliminary objection have been controverted by the plaintiff in the corresponding para of the replication.
28 A perusal of the material placed on record shows that plaintiff has taken a plea in para-1 of the plaint that plaintiff company was earlier known as M/s. Flex Chemical Ltd. however, its name was subsequently changed to M/s. FCL Technologies Ltd. vide certificate of incorporation dated 28.04.2000. It has further averred that Mr. Basant Kumar was Deputy General Manager who is duly authorized by the company to sign and verify the present suit.
29 In order to substantiate the aforesaid averment, plaintiff has examined Sh. Basant Kumar as PW-1 who reiterated the said fact in para-1 & 2 of his examination in chief. PW-1 has also placed on record certificate of incorporation dated 28.04.2000 as Ex.PW1/1 and Board Resolution passed in his favour as Ex.PW1/2. PW-1 has been thoroughly cross examined by the defendant. However, the above testimony made by PW-1 in his examination in chief remained unrebutted and uncontroverted because defendant has not Suit No. 362/09 Page no. 17 of 18 carried out any cross examination whatsoever of PW-1 on these aspects. In the absence of any cross examination the defendant deemed to have admitted the testimony of PW-1 made in para-1 in his examination in chief.
30 The Defendant has not placed any material on record which can show or suggest that plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit or that Mr. Basant Kumar not duly authorized on behalf of the plaintiff to institute the present suit. The defendant has thus failed to prove on record that plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit or that M/s. Flex Chemicals Ltd. was the necessary party or that the suit was not been filed by duly authorized person.
31 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the considered view that defendant has failed to prove on record that the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of the preliminary objections taken in the written statement. The defendant has failed to discharge the onus of issue no. 2, same is accordingly decided against the defendant.
32 Relief In view of the above, suit filed by the plaintiff is decreed with cost. A decree for recovery of Rs. 15,64,815/- is passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant alongwith interest @ 12 % p.a (simple) from the date of filing of the suit till its actual realization. Decree Sheet be accordingly prepared. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court (PITAMBER DUTT)
On the 27.05.2014 Additional District Judge
Delhi
Suit No. 362/09 Page no. 18 of 18
Suit No. 362/09 Page no. 19 of 18
Suit No. 362/09 Page no. 20 of 18