Delhi District Court
Centre For Development Of Telematics vs Tarun Kumar Mandal on 12 October, 2015
1
In the Court of Ms. Namrita Aggarwal
Commercial Civil Judge cum ARC1 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Suit No. 81/06/02
Unique I.D. No. 02401C0557702003
In the matter of :
Centre for Development of Telematics
Through its attorney Ms. K. Balaparmeshwari
having its registered office at
Room No. 904, 9th Floor,
Akbar Hotel, Chanakayapuri,
New Delhi110021 ........ Plaintiff
Versus
1.Tarun Kumar Mandal 19/517, DDA Flats, Madangir, New Delhi.
2. Sudhin Chatterjee 19 H, L Pocket, Sheikh Sarai, PhaseII, New Delhi. ........Defendants Page No. 1 of 1 Centre for Development of Telematics Vs. T. K. Mandal & Anr. CS No. 16/14 2 SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF Rs. 1,56,000/ Date of Institution : 24.05.2002 Final arguments heard/case reserved for Judgment : 14.09.2015 Date of Judgment : 12.10.2015 Decision : Suit dismissed EXPARTE JUDGMENT:
1. A suit for recovery of Rs. 1,56,000/ was filed by the plaintiff Centre for Development of Telematics through its attorney Ms. K. Balaparmershwari against the defendant Tarun Kumar Mandal for violation of the service bond executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a registered society under Govt. of India involved in telecommunications research and development. Defendant No. 1 was appointed to the post of Graduate Engineer Trainee vide appointment letter dated 18.11.1996. That at the time of joining the service of the plaintiff, defendant No. 1 executed a service agreement bond whereby he undertook to work under the plaintiff organization for a minimum period of three years after the successful completion of his training. That the defendant No. 2 signed as surety for defendant No. 1 whereby he made himself jointly and severally liable for breach, if any, committed by defendant No. 1. The training period was designated for a period of one year from the date of joining the service by the defendant no. 1 or for such period as the Page No. 2 of 2 Centre for Development of Telematics Vs. T. K. Mandal & Anr. CS No. 16/14 3 plaintiff may deem fit and proper. It is averred that as per paragraph 6 of the Bond, the defendants undertook that they would be jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ in case defendant No. 1 commits breach of any of the terms and conditions of the Service Bond. Subsequently, the defendant No. 1 was taken into contract employment by the plaintiff w.e.f. 18.11.1996 vide appointment letter dated 24.10.1996. That the defendant No. 1 after completing one year training as per the Service Agreement Bond executed by him, was to remain in employment at least for a minimum period of three years but defendant No. 1 after having completed the said training, proceeded on leave for a period of 10 days on 24.05.1999 and did not report back. That the said defendant continued to absent himself and finally his leave period expired on 03.06.1999.
That the defendant No. 1 was immediately informed by the plaintiff vide letter dated 15.06.1999 to report back on duty but the said defendant did not report back. It is averred by the plaintiff that since defendant No. 1 failed to serve the plaintiff organization for a minimum period of three years as per the service agreement bond, the plaintiff vide letter dated 25.04.2001 demanded the defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ towards breach of the service bond. Several attempts were made by the plaintiff to contact defendants no. 1 and 2. However, none of the efforts proved to be fruitful On the above stated ground, prayer is made for recovery of Rs. 1,00,000/ as breach of terms and conditions of Service Agreement Bond alongwith interest @ 18% per annum from the Page No. 3 of 3 Centre for Development of Telematics Vs. T. K. Mandal & Anr. CS No. 16/14 4 date of breach till 20.05.2002 amounting to Rs. 1,56,000/.
3. Several attempts were made for service upon the defendants but they could not be served. Thereafter attempts were made to serve the defendants through publication in daily newspaper "Statesmen" but despite publication none had appeared on behalf of the defendants and therefore defendants were proceeded exparte vide order dated 30.05.2005.
4. During evidence, Ms. Neeti Kapoor, executive in the plaintiff company stepped into the witness box and deposed on the lines of plaint. Further, she relied upon the following documents:
a. Authorization letter : Ex. PW1/1 b. Service agreement bond dated 18.11.1996 : Ex. PW1/2 c. appointment order dated 24.10.1996 : Ex. PW1/3 d. Letter dated 25.04.2001 : Ex. PW1/4 e. Report dated 19.03.2012 : Ex. PW1/5
However, none of the documents filed by the plaintiff were in original. It was averred by PW1 that the original documents could not be placed on record since they were destroyed by book worm infection which occurred in the office of the plaintiff in JanuaryMarch 2006. The plaintiff also placed on record letter issued by one of the executive of Registrar of Companies that the following documents were not available since the same were destroyed in book worm infection. These documents are as follows:
Page No. 4 of 4 Centre for Development of Telematics Vs. T. K. Mandal & Anr. CS No. 16/14 5
1. Authorization letter Ex. PW1/1,
2. Service agreement bond dated 18.11.1996 Ex. PW1/2,
3. Appointment order dated 24.10.1996 Ex. PW1/3,
4. Letter dated 25.04.2001 Ex. PW1/4 and,
5. Report dated 19.03.2012 Ex. PW1/5.
5. I have heard the exparte arguments and perused the record. My findings are as follows:
6. It is averred by the plaintiff that defendant No. 1 had entered into service agreement bond with the plaintiff stating that after the completion of one year training, the defendant No. 1 would continue with the service of plaintiff for a minimum period of three years and if he would violate the terms and conditions of the service agreement bond, he would be liable to pay a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/. Defendant No. 2 signed as surety for defendant no. 1 whereby he jointly and severally made himself liable to pay Rs. 1,00,000/ in case of any breach of agreement. However, the plaintiff failed to file the original copy of service agreement bond or the letter issued by the plaintiff against the defendants asking the defendants to pay Rs. 1,00,000/ for breach of the service agreement bond. It is submitted by the plaintiff that the original documents were destroyed in book worm infection. To prove the same, plaintiff has filed a letter issued by the executive of CDOT in favour of the Registrar informing him that certain files have been destroyed by book worm infection. However, no certificate Page No. 5 of 5 Centre for Development of Telematics Vs. T. K. Mandal & Anr. CS No. 16/14 6 has been issued by the head of the CDOT company under his stamp or signatures that original documents are not available with the company since they were destroyed in book worm infection. In the absence of any suitable certificate issued by the head of the CDOT company under his signatures or stamp, it cannot be believed that the original documents were destroyed by book worm infection and therefore the plaintiff cannot be allowed to lead secondary evidence instead of placing on record the original documents since the entire case of the plaintiff is based on original documents, i.e., service agreement bond and letter of termination of service of the defendant due to breach of the service agreement. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed in the absence of original documents.
RELIEF
7. In view of discussion made above, the suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Announced in open Court (Namrita Aggarwal)
th
on 12 Day of October, 2015. CCJ cum ARC1 (Central) [This judgment contains 06 pages.] Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Page No. 6 of 6 Centre for Development of Telematics Vs. T. K. Mandal & Anr. CS No. 16/14