Delhi District Court
Karl Storz Endoscopy vs Mr. Jaideep Singh on 24 September, 2022
IN THE COURT OF VASUNDHRA CHHAUNKAR,
ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURT, NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No:1483/2021
Karl Storz Endoscopy
India Pvt. Ltd.
Having its Registered office at:
11th Floor, Dr. Gopal Das Bhawan,
28, Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001
Through its Authorized Representative ............Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Jaideep Singh
Sole Proprietor of
Lifecare Hospital and Surgical Centre
Milkipur - Narainpur Road
Varanasi-221008
Uttar Pradesh ........Defendant
Date of Institution : 23.12.2021
Date on which judgment was reserved : 17.09.2022
Date of pronouncing judgment : 24.09.2022
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.2,05,000/- ALONGWITH INTEREST
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.2,05,000/- alongwith interest against the defendant.
2. In brief, case of the plaintiff is that Sh. Vikas Sharma is the Authorized Representative of the plaintiff company, who has been authorized to sign, verify and institute the present suit. It is averred that the defendant claims to be in the healthcare sector running his healthcare entity by the name and style under the sole proprietorship known as "Lifecare Hospital and Surgical Centre". In the course of running his centre, the defendant communicated with the authorrized CS No.1483/2021 Karl Storz Endoscopy India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jaideep Singh Page No.1 of 5 representative of the plaintiff company and sought procurement of the world class equipment being sold by the plaintiff company. It is averred that the defendant placed an order with the plaintiff and upon the supply of the said equipment, the plaintiff duly made the supply of the said equipment to the complete satisfaction of the defendant without any demur or protest. The total invoice was for an amount of Rs.7,24,999.99. The defendant had made part payment against the said amount due and payable by it to the plaintiff through separate payment instruments. While one part of the payment was made as advance through an IMPS transaction, the other part of advance was paid by the defendant through a cheque. For the balance amount due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff, the defendant issued post dated cheques in acknowledgment of his dues towards the equipment procured from the plaintiff. However, due to the deliberate non-payment by the defendant against his legal liability, an amount of Rs.3,55,000/- remained due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff as on 31.03.2019. It is averred that the cheques amounting to Rs.75000/- and Rs.90,000/- dated 18.08.2017 and 20.09.2017 respectively, in partial discharge of his liability, thereby acknowledging his legal liability. However, the said cheques were not honoured by the defendant and got bounced back from the bank. At the time of issuing the cheques, the defendant assured the plaintiff that the same is good for value and will be honored as and when presented. The third cheque was also returned unpaid for the reasons 'Funds Insufficient'. The said information was received by the complainant on 27.07.2018 vide the return memo issued in this regard. When the plaintiff approached the defendant about the said dishonor, he assured the complainant that the said cheque should be presented once again after a couple of days whereafter he would have arranged for the money and the cheque CS No.1483/2021 Karl Storz Endoscopy India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jaideep Singh Page No.2 of 5 would be honored. However, to the complete shock and surprise of the plaintiff, the said cheque got dishonoured again on 30.08.2018 whereafter the malafide intention of the defendant to not make the payment was established beyond doubt. Owing to the above dishonour, the plaintiff already initiated the proceedings with respect to the cheque bearing no.000480 dated 25.07.2018 for an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- under Section 138 of NI Act. The same is pending adjudication before the concerned learned Metropolitan Magistrate, South East Delhi at Saket District Courts, New Delhi as CC No.11113 of 2018 and which is listed for further proceedings on 15.01.2022. It is averred that the plaintiff requested the defendant several times to make the payment of the outstanding amount which was due and payable by him, but the defendant, on one pretext or the other, has avoided to pay any heed to the legitimate requests of the plaintiff without any cause of reason and has failed miserably to make the payment of the due and payable amount to the plaintiff. Hence, the present suit for recovery of the said amount along with interest.
3. Summons to the defendant served through Speed Post. But despite service, he failed to appear. Accordingly, he was proceeded ex- parte vide order dated 03.08.2022 and the case was fixed for ex-parte plaintiff evidence.
4. In ex-parte plaintiff evidence, plaintiff examined only one witness Sh. Amarendra Kumar as PW1. He has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He has reiterated the contents of the plaint on oath. Therefore, they are not reproduced herein for the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition. He has relied upon following documents:-
a) Copy of Board Resolution is Ex.PW1/1;CS No.1483/2021
Karl Storz Endoscopy India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jaideep Singh Page No.3 of 5
b) Copy of the invoices issued by the plaintiff bearing no.9040000650 dated 17.08.2017 is Ex.PW1/2;
c) Copy of statement of accounts / ledger statement is Ex.PW1/3;
d) Copies of cheques is Ex.PW1/4 (Colly);
e) Copy of the proceedings pending before the ld. MM, Saket District Courts in CC No.11113/2018 is Ex.PW1/5; and
f) Certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW1/6.
Thereafter, ex-parte PE stands closed.
5. Final arguments are heard. Record perused.
6. The testimony of PW1 has remained un-impeached. He has consistently, categorically and unequivocally testified that the defendant placed the order on the basis of documents i.e. copy of Board Resolution-Ex.PW1/1; copy of the invoices issued by the plaintiff bearing no.9040000650 dated 17.08.2017-Ex.PW1/2; copy of statement of accounts / ledger statement-Ex.PW1/3; copies of cheques-Ex.PW1/4 (Colly); copy of the proceedings pending before the ld. MM, Saket District Courts in CC No.11113/2018-Ex.PW1/5; and certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act-Ex.PW1/6. The present matter also filed within the period of limitation in terms of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment passed in M.A. No.665 of 2021 in SMW(C) No.3 of 2020. Thus, as per the said documents, defendant is liable to repay the said outstanding balance amount. The suit of the plaintiff has remained uncontroverted and unrebutted as despite service, defendant did not appear and he was proceeded ex-parte. In view of the aforesaid documents and testimony of PW1, there exists no reason to disbelieve the case of the plaintiff. Hence, all the averments made in the plaint and documents placed on record are deemed to be admitted and stand duly proved. By virtue of the un-impeached testimony of PW-1 and the documents placed on record by him, I am satisfied that, on the date of institution of this suit, a total amount of CS No.1483/2021 Karl Storz Endoscopy India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jaideep Singh Page No.4 of 5 Rs.2,05,000/- was due and payable by the defendant to the plaintiff towards the outstanding amount.
7. In respect of pendente lite and future interest, the plaintiff has claimed a interest @ 12% per annum. However, this court is of the considered opinion that the said rate of interest is penal, exorbitant and unreasonable. The pendentelite and future interest @ 9% per annum would serve the ends of justice.
8. Thus, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for the sum of Rs.2,05,000/- (Rupees Two Lakh Five Thousand Only) alongwith interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of this suit till its realisation. Defendant is liable to pay the said outstanding amount.
9. Cost of the suit is assessed as Rs.7800/- and it is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24.09.2022 VASUNDHRA CHHAUNKAR ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI CS No.1483/2021 Karl Storz Endoscopy India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Jaideep Singh Page No.5 of 5