Delhi District Court
M/S J.S.B. Auto Pvt. Ltd vs Mr. Padam Garg on 21 November, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI,
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (SOUTH),
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS No. 65/2012
Unique Case ID No. 02406C0105242012
M/s J.S.B. Auto Pvt. Ltd.,
A39, Mohan Cooperative Industrial Estate,
Mathura Road,
New Delhi 110 044.
Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Padam Garg,
335, Gagan Vihar,
Near Preet Vihar Petrol Pump,
Delhi.
Defendant
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 07.05.2012
DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : Not reserved.
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.11.2012
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 42,278/ (RUPEES FORTY TWO
THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY EIGHT ONLY)
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff company has filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 42,278/ against the defendant alongwith pendente lite interest @ S65/2011 Page No. 1 of 5 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization.
2. The plaintiff company has filed the present suit through Mr. Varun Kant Mishra, who has been authorized vide board resolution passed in the meeting of Directors held on 25.12.2011 to file the present suit against the defendant. The plaintiff's case in brief is that the plaintiff is the authorized dealer of M/s Skoda Auto India Pvt. Ltd and is engaged in the business of selling / distributing the Skoda cars and other incidental works/services. The plaintiff company is working its business in its brand name Jai Auto. According to plaintiff, the defendant being a customer approached the workshop of plaintiff company for repairing / removing the defects of his vehicle of Octivia bearing no. DL 1CJ - 4374 on 11.05.2010. It is stated that after diagnosing the car, the job card was open as per the directions / approval of the defendant and given a rough estimate to him regarding his vehicle. The defects occurred during the course of playing the car by the defendant were removed by the mechanics of the plaintiff company to his satisfaction. The said car was repaired at the workshop of plaintiff company at New Delhi vide invoice no. DEL01000533 dated 21.05.2010 for Rs. 42,278/ after giving the discount on labour charges to the defendant. The defendant is alleged to have not paid a S65/2011 Page No. 2 of 5 single penny against the cost of repairing the car. The defendant acknowledged and assured the plaintiff to make payment after some days and made request for delivering the car. The plaintiff company delivered the car to the defendant on his assurance. The defendant failed to pay the outstanding dues of the plaintiff company despite requests and assurance given by him. Therefore, the plaintiff got sent a legal notice dated 29.02.2012 to the defendant at his address but the defendant neither responded nor made the payment till date. Hence, the present suit.
3. The defendant was duly served with the summons of the suit at his given address. The defendant despite due service of process upon him neither appeared nor contested the suit filed by plaintiff against him. Accordingly, the defendant was proceeded exparte vide order dated 28.05.2012. Thereafter, matter was fixed for exparte evidence of plaintiff.
4. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff company has got examined its authorized representative Mr. Varun Kant Mishra as PW1. Mr. Mishra filed his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has reiterated and reaffirmed the same facts as is stated in the plaint. During the course of his deposition, PW1 relied upon and proved the following documents:
S65/2011 Page No. 3 of 5
i. Board resolution dated 25.12.2011 Ex.PW1/A; ii. Original Job card Ex.PW1/B;
iii.Cash Memo Ex.PW1/C and original voucher as Ex.PW1/D; iv.Work status done by the engineers of the plaintiff company Ex.PW1/E;
v. The delivery gate pass Ex.PW1/F; vi.Invoice Ex.PW1/G and ledger account Ex.PW1/H; vii.Copy of legal notice Ex.PW1/I and receipt of speed post Ex.PW1/J.
5. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for plaintiff and gone through the entire material available on record.
6. The deposition of PW1 has gone uncontroverted and un challenged. Since the defendant failed to contest the suit of the plaintiff, therefore, the averments of the plaintiff being uncontroversial, are deemed to be admitted by the defendant and proved against him. The defendant has not come forward to dispute the amount claimed by the plaintiff company in the present suit.
7. The documents duly proved on record by the plaintiff shows the defendant brought his car for repairing in the workshop of plaintiff on 11.05.2010. He was issued a job card Ex.PW1/B. The mechanics of the S65/2011 Page No. 4 of 5 plaintiff company removed the defects in the car of the defendant and raised invoice Ex.PW1/G. The defendant despite availing the services of the plaintiff company failed to make payment of the due amount. The defendant even despite service of legal notice failed to make payment to the plaintiff till date. The defendant even despite service of summons of the suit preferred neither to appear nor to contest the claim made by the plaintiff company against him. The plaintiff has proved its case against the defendant beyond all probability and has shown its entitlement for recovery of the suit amount from him.
8. Hence, in the given circumstances, suit of the plaintiff is decreed against defendant. Defendant is directed to pay a sum of Rs. 42,278/ to the plaintiff with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. Decreesheet be prepared. File be consigned to record room.
(Announced in open Court (RAJ KUMAR TRIPATHI)
on 21.11.2012) SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE (SOUTH)
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
S65/2011 Page No. 5 of 5