Bangalore District Court
M/S Dtdc Express Ltd vs M/S Narmada Enterprises on 12 October, 2020
1 O.S.No.5380/2015
IN THE COURT OF THE XXXVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BENGALURU CITY(CCH-39)
Dated this the 12th Day of October 2020
Present
Sri Devanand Puttappa Nayak B.A., LL.B.,(Spl.)
XXXVIII Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.
Original Suit No.5380/2015
Plaintiff:
M/s DTDC Express Ltd., Formerly known as
DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd., DTDC House
No.269, Albert Victor road, 1st Main,
Chamrajpet, Bengaluru560 018 represented
by its Head Administration(SZ) & Sr.Manager
IR and Legal Mr.T.S.Ramamurthy
[by advocate Sri Dileep N]
vs
Defendant:
M/s Narmada Enterprises, at VILL.Bhangrola,
Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana122001
represented by its Proprietor Mrs.Narmada
Sharma
And also at
Mrs.Narmada Sharma, W/o Jai Prakash
Sharma, BLDG No.2315/15, Tea Canteen
Behind Karim Restaurant, A.K.Chowk,
Gurgaon
[ by advocate Sri J.P.]
2 O.S.No.5380/2015
Date of institution of 20/06/2015
the suit
Nature of the suit: Recovery of Money
Date of commencement
of recording of evidence:
05/03/2018
Date on which 12/10/2020
Judgment was
pronounced
Total duration: Year Month Days
05 08 22
JUDGMENT
This is the suit filed by the Plaintiff's Company represented by its Head Administration(SZ) & Sr.ManagerIR and LegalMr.T.S.Ramamurthy for recovery of money from the Defendants, with costs.
2. It is the case of the Plaintiff's Company that it is the Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 under the name and style 'M/s DTDC Express Ltd., formerly known as M/s DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd.,' and is having its registered and regional offices at Bangalore. The core activity of the 3 O.S.No.5380/2015 Plaintiff's Company is courier and carriage of Cargo, transshipment of documents and other parcels through India and abroad.
The Plaintiff's Company further submits that the Defendant had approached the Plaintiff's Company and sought for franchise of the Plaintiff's Company. On the request of the Defendant, a franchiseship was given to the Defendant on 20.10.2011 and the Defendant has been carrying out the business under the name and style M/s Narmada Enterprises at the address mentioned in the causetitle. The Defendant as a Franchisee, had availed the services of the Plaintiff's Company for transshipment of consignments to various places and destinations booked by the Defendant on behalf of the Plaintiff's Company.
The Plaintiff's Company further submits that as per the franchisee Agreement, the Defendant ought to have made the transshipment charges/service charges/ payment to the Plaintiff's Company on or before 7 th of 4 O.S.No.5380/2015 every month for the services rendered by the Plaintiff's Company. As per the statement of accounts maintained by the Plaintiff's Company, the Defendant is due to the Plaintiff's Company a sum of Rs.1,02,307/ as on 10.12.2013.
The Plaintiff's Company further submits that even after repeated requests and personal visits made by the representatives of Plaintiff's Company, the Defendant has not paid the outstanding amount due by him to the Plaintiff's Company. The Defendant had also stopped branch activities abruptly, due to which the Plaintiff's Company underwent huge hardship as their customers' consignments were held up in the office of the Defendant without delivering the same within the time frame fixed by the Plaintiff's Company. The Defendant has neither completed the closure formalities nor cleared the total outstanding amount of Rs.1,02,307/ to the Plaintiff's Company. Hence the Plaintiff's Company got issued a legal notice dt.12.1.2015 to the Defendant demanding 5 O.S.No.5380/2015 payment of outstanding amount. Since the Defendant had stopped business activities at the address shown in the cause title, the Plaintiff had sent legal demand notice to the residential address of the Defendant and the said notice was served on the Defendant. In spite of receipt of said notice, the Defendants failed to pay the outstanding amount. Without there being any valid reason, the Defendant had retained a sum of Rs.1,02,307/ since from past several months, hence the Defendant is liable to pay interest at 24% p.a. Hence the Plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of said amount from the Defendant.
The cause of action for filing of this suit arose on 20.10.2011 when the Defendant was given franchiseship of the Plaintiff's Company and when the Defendant failed to make the transshipment charges as per the statement of account generated every month till 10.12.2013 and on 12.1.2015 when the demand notice was sent to the Defendant and further on 28.1.2015 when the notice was duly served on the Defendant and on all subsequent 6 O.S.No.5380/2015 events. Therefore, the plaintiff requested the Court to decree the suit as prayed in the prayer column of the plaint.
3. In this case, the summons issued to the defendant was served. The Defendant appeared before Court through his counsel, but not filed written statement even though sufficient time and opportunity was granted. Therefore written statement by Defendant was taken as 'nil' by order dt.24.11.2017 and the case was posted for Plaintiff's evidence.
4. In this case the Manager of the Plaintiff's Company by name Sri T.S.Ramamurthy, adduced his oral evidence by way of filing sworn affidavit considered as PW1 and in further chief examination of PW1, the documents produced by him are marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. In this case since the defendant is placed exparte, there is no any oral and documentary evidence by side of defendant and the crossexamination of PW1 is taken as 'nil'. After hearing the arguments by the side of plaintiff, the case posted for Judgment.
5. On perusal of the pleadings of the plaint and sworn 7 O.S.No.5380/2015 affidavit filed by PW1 on oath, the following points arise for my consideration:
1. Whether the Plaintiff's Company represented through its authorized person proves that the Defendant is liable to pay the due amount of Rs.1,02,307/ with interest at 24% p.a. as prayed for?
2. Whether the Plaintiff's Company represented through its authorized person is entitled to decree as prayed for?
3. What order or decree?
6. My findings on the above Points are as follows :-
1. In the Affirmative.
2. In the Affirmative.
3. As per final order, for the following reasons: REASONS POINT NOs.1 and 2 :
7. In this case, in order to prove the case of the Plaintiff's Company, the Senior Manager of the Plaintiff's Company by name Sri T.S.Rama Murthy adduced his oral evidence by way of filing sworn affidavit considered as PW1 and in further chief examination of PW1, the documents produced 8 O.S.No.5380/2015 by him are marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6.
8. Here as per the pleadings of the plaint and sworn affidavit filed by PW1, it reveals that the Plaintiff's Company is the Company registered under the Companies Act, 1956 under the name and style 'M/s DTDC Express Ltd., formerly known as M/s DTDC Courier and Cargo Ltd.,' and is having its registered and regional offices at Bangalore. The core activity of the Plaintiff's Company is courier and carriage of Cargo, transshipment of documents and other parcels through India and abroad. The Defendant had approached the Plaintiff's Company and sought for franchise of the Plaintiff's Company and on the request of the Defendant, a franchiseship was given to the Defendant on 20.10.2011 and the Defendant has been carrying out the business under the name and style M/s Narmada Enterprises. The Franchisee Agreement entered in between the Plaintiff's Company and the Defendant dt.20.10.2011 is produced by PW1 and marked as Ex.P2. The original authorization letter produced by PW1 is marked as Ex.P1.
9 O.S.No.5380/2015
9. Here as per the franchisee Agreement, the Defendant ought to have made the transshipment charges/service charges/payment to the Plaintiff's Company on or before 7 th of every month for the services rendered by the Plaintiff's Company. But the Defendant failed to make payment for the services rendered by the Plaintiff and as per the statement of accounts maintained by the Plaintiff's Company, the Defendant is due to the Plaintiff's Company a sum of Rs.1,02,307/ as on 10.12.2013. Here Ex.P3 is the Certificate of Incorporation of the Plaintiff's Company and Ex.P4 is the statement of account belongs to the office of the Defendant. The Closing balance in page No.43 of Ex.P3 shows that there is a due amount payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff's Company of Rs.1,02,91764, however the Plaintiff's Company restricted its claim to Rs.1,02,307/ with interest at 24% p.a. Here when the Defendant has not paid the outstanding amount due by him to the Plaintiff's Company, the Plaintiff's Company got issued a legal notice dt.12.1.2015 as per Ex.P5, to the Defendant demanding payment of outstanding amount. Ex.P6 is the 10 O.S.No.5380/2015 postal receipts and RPAD acknowledgments. Therefore from the sworn affidavit of PW1 and the documents produced by PW1 i.e., Ex.P1 to P6 goes to show that as on the date of filing of this suit, the Defendant is liable to pay amount of Rs.1,02,307/ to the Plaintiff's Company. Here PW1 has filed Certificate u/S 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 which is accepted by the Court. As per the said Certificate it is confirmed that the account of the transaction held in the name of the Defendant is kept as per Sec.32(2) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Hence the Plaintiff's Company relying on the oral evidence of PW1 and documentary evidence as per Ex.P1 to P6, proved that the Defendant is liable to pay due amount of Rs.1,02,307/ along with interest at 24% p.a. Hence I answered Point Nos.1 and 2 in the Affirmative.
POINT NO.3:
10. In view of the foregoing discussion and observation made in all the above Points, this Court proceeds to pass the following:11 O.S.No.5380/2015
ORDER Suit filed by the Plaintiff's Company represented by its authorised person, against the defendant is hereby decreed for a sum of Rs.1,02,307/(Rupees One Lakh Two Thousand Three Hundred and Seven only), with costs.
Further decreeing that the Plaintiff's Company represented by its authorised person, is entitled to rate of interest at the rate of 24% p.a. from the date of suit till realization.
Further it is directed to the Defendant to pay the entire decretal amount along with interest as per the above order within three months from the date of this Order.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Judgment Writer, typed by her, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 12 th day of October 2020) (DEVANAND PUTTAPPA NAYAK) XXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.12 O.S.No.5380/2015
ANNEXURE List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Plaintiff P.W.1 T.S.Ramamurthy List of documents marked on behalf of the Plaintiff: Ex.P.1 The original authorization letter.
Ex.P.2 The original agreement dated
20.10.2011.
Ex.P.3 Certificate of incorporation.
Ex.P.4 Statement of account.
Ex.P.5 The copy of the legal notice.
Ex.P.6 Postal receipts and RPAD
acknowledgement.
List of witnesses examined on behalf of the Defendant:NIL List of documents marked on behalf of the Defendant:NIL XXXVIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bangalore City.