Delhi District Court
Suit No.:830/17 Deepak Kumar Bansal vs . Saurabh Bansal on 8 January, 2019
Suit no.:830/17 Deepak Kumar Bansal vs. Saurabh Bansal
IN THE COURT OF SH MUNEESH GARG, CIVIL JUDGE,
EAST DISTRICT, KARKARDOOMA COURTS, NEW DELHI
Suit no.:830/17
In the matter of--
Deepak Kumar Bansal
s/o Sh. Jaipal Sngh,
r/o WZ 440D, Street No.18F,
Sadh Nagar Part2, Palam Colony,
New Delhi110045
......Plaintiff
versus
Saurabh Bansal
r/o F144, Second Floor,
Mangal Bazar, Laxmi Nagar,
New Delhi.
......Defendant
Date of Institution:14.10.2017
Date of reservation for judgment:04.12.2018.
Date of Judgment:08.01.2019.
Page 1 of 7
Suit no.:830/17 Deepak Kumar Bansal vs. Saurabh Bansal
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,64,000/ filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
2. In brief, it is the case of plaintiff that defendant claimed that he is running a company by the name and style of 'Talentraders Careers Pvt. Ltd.' and represented himself as a job consultant. Defendant portrayed before plaintiff that he could arrange a decent job for him in his client companies. Defendant assured that he could find and arrange a job for him as an Assistant Manager in HR Department of a leading company. Defendant sought Rs. 60,000/ as his service charges for above service vide email dated 23.02.2017 and further stated that plaintiff had to pay Rs. 30,000/ as advance before interview and pay the rest amount after joining. Defendant also affirmed that payment was refundable before getting offer letter from company. Defendant provided details of his personal bank account maintained by him in Axis Bank. On the basis of above assurances of defendant, plaintiff sent his resume to defendant through his email dated 23.02.2017. On 23.02.2017, plaintiff transferred Rs. 20,000/ through his bank and Rs. 10,000/ through Paytm to defendant. Defendant duly admitted and acknowledged the receipt of Rs. 30,000/ through his second e mail dated 23.02.2017.
Page 2 of 7Suit no.:830/17 Deepak Kumar Bansal vs. Saurabh Bansal
3. It is the further case of plaintiff that defendant told plaintiff that HR Department of Crown Plaza had asked for payment of Rs. 30,000/ and Rs. 4,000/ for paper work. Therefore, on the basis of earlier assurances of defendant, plaintiff made an online transfer of Rs. 20,000/ by two separate transactions of Rs. 10,000/ each in defendant's bank account and Paytm account on 27.02.2017. It is the case of plaintiff that defendant had falsely claimed that Crown Plaza was his client company. However, defendant had no relation with said company and said amount was retained by defendant. Defendant duly admitted and acknowledged the receipt of Rs. 34,000/ through his email dated 27.02.2017.
4. It is the case of plaintiff that defendant sent an email on 05.03.2017 wherein he falsely stated that job wok of plaintiff was done and only paper formality is pending. Defendant also asked for depositing of Rs. 1,00,000/ in cash as security for signing 5 years bond with the company. Defendant gave assurance that aforesaid amount be refunded after one month of signing of bond. On assurance, plaintiff arranged Rs. 1,00,000/ from relatives and deposited with defendant on 07.03.2017. Defendant issued a receiving slip on his letter head towards aforesaid amount. No job was offered to plaintiff till 10.03.2017. Therefore, plaintiff asked defendant for a full refund of service charges and security money. In response, defendant sent an email dated 15.03.2017 and agreed to refund Page 3 of 7 Suit no.:830/17 Deepak Kumar Bansal vs. Saurabh Bansal the said amount by 25.03.2017, if plaintiff did not get any offer letter. Defendant admitted receipt of Rs. 1,00,000/ through e mail dated 15.03.2017 and acknowledge that the same is refundable. Thereafter, plaintiff tried to contact defendant several times, but he did not answer calls/whatsapp messages of plaintiff. It is the claim of plaintiff that defendant cheated him to the tune of Rs. 1,64,000/. Aggrieved by the conduct of defendant, plaintiff lodged a complaint in police station Palam Colony on 26.03.2017 vide DD No. 21B. Plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 06.07.2017 to defendant sent through registered post AD. Hence, plaintiff filed present suit for recovery of Rs. 1,64,000/ with interest @ 18% per annum.
5. Defendant was served by way of affixation but he did not appear before the court. Therefore, he was proceed exparte vide order dated 29.02.2018.
6. Subsequently, plaintiff examined himself in evidence as PW1.
He relied upon his testimony Ex. PW1/A and the following documents:
Ex. PW1/1 (colly) Copies of email dated 23.02.2017, 03.03.2017, 10.03.2017 and 15.03.2017 Ex. PW1/2 Copy of alert emails dated 23.02.2017 from yes bank Ex. PW1/3 Copy of emails dated 23.02.2017 received from paytm Page 4 of 7 Suit no.:830/17 Deepak Kumar Bansal vs. Saurabh Bansal Ex. PW1/4 Copy of online transactions receipts dated 23.02.2017 from paytm Ex. PW1/5 Copy of alert emails dated 27.02.2017 from yes bank Ex. PW1/6 Copy of emails dated 27.02.2017 received from paytm Ex. PW1/7 Copy of online transactions receipts dated 27.02.2017 from paytm Ex. PW1/8 Copy of alert email dated 27.02.2017 from paytm forwarded by Vivek to plaintiff Ex. PW1/9 (colly) Copy of email of paytm forwarded by Vivek Sen to plaintiff Ex. PW1/10 Email dated 27.02.2017 between plaintiff and defendant Mark A Copy of statement of bank account dated 01.02.2017 to 10.03.2017 Ex. PW1/12 Copy of receipts towards Rs. 1,00,000/ issued by defendant Ex. PW1/13 copy of complaint dated 26.03.2017 Ex.PW1/14 (colly) Legal notice dated 06.07.2017 and postal receipt dated 08.07.2017 Ex.PW1/15 Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act Page 5 of 7 Suit no.:830/17 Deepak Kumar Bansal vs. Saurabh Bansal
7. Plaintiff examined Sh. Vivek as PW2. He has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW2/A and relied upon documents which are already exhibited as Ex. PW1/8 i.e. E mail and Ex. PW1/9 i.e. email sent by deponent to plaintiff on 10.10.2017 and he also relied upon document Ex. PW2/1 (OSR) i.e. copy of aadhar card. Evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 27.10.2018.
8. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and carefully perused the record.
9. The defendant being exparte, the testimony of plaintiff has remained unchallenged and unrebutted. There is nothing to disbelieve the unrebutted testimony of the witnesses of plaintiff or to doubt the authenticity of the documents and veracity of the documents exhibited and proved on record. The defendant did not come forward to disprove the case of the plaintiff. The present suit is within limitation. The suit of the plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to be decreed against the defendant. This suit, therefore, stands decreed in sum of Rs. 1,64,000/ in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
10.Plaintiff has also claimed an interest at the rate of 18 percent per annum on the said amount. The rate of interest to be granted is governed by provisions of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In view of the relations between the parties, court is Page 6 of 7 Suit no.:830/17 Deepak Kumar Bansal vs. Saurabh Bansal of the considered opinion that the rate of interest sought is unconscionably high. Plaintiff is awarded interest at the rate of 9 percent per annum.
11.In light of this, suit stands decreed. Plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs. 1,64,000/ alongwith interest at the rate of 9 percent from date of institution of suit till receipt of payment. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed off accordingly. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Judgment dictated directly and Announced in Open Court on 08.01.2019 Muneesh Garg CJ/East/Karkardooma Digitally signed by MUNEESH GARG MUNEESH Location:
GARG Karkardooma
Courts, Delhi
Date:
2019.01.08
17:04:51
+0530
Page 7 of 7