Delhi District Court
M/S. Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals ... vs Uppu Thirupathi on 1 May, 2023
IN THE COURT OF DR. HARDEEP KAUR,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-04, SOUTH DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
Suit No.:CS DJ 35/2020
CNR No: DLST 01-000440-2020
M/s. Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals Limited
Having its registered office at:
T-210 J, Shahpur Jat
New Delhi-110049.
....Plaintiff
Versus
Uppu Thirupathi
H.No: 10-1-255/A/1
Ramnagar,
Karimnagar-505001
Telangana
...Defendant
Date of institution of the suit : 17.01.2020
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 01.05.2023
EX-PARTE JUDGMENT
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF DAMAGES OF Rs.5,00,000/-.
1.The brief facts as stated in the plaint are that plaintiff is a company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 and is having its registered and head office at T-210 J, ShahpurJat, New Delhi - 110049. The present suit is being filed through Mr. Pradeep Gautam, Manager Legal, IR & Compliances for the plaintiff company, who is fully authorized and empowered to sign, verify and institute the present suit/proceedings for and on CS DJ 35/20 M/s. Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Uppu Thirupathi Page no.1 of 21 behalf of the plaintiff vide Resolution passed in the meeting of the Board of Directors of the plaintiff company held on 22.11.2019. Plaintiff is a reputed listed Pharma company in India, which was founded in 1964. It specializes in developing and manufacturing of bulk drugs and pharmaceutical formulation. The plaintiff has built up its impeccable reputation over the last several decades due to its commitment towards its customers and by constantly improving on its products through research and development.
2. The plaintiff had hired the defendant as its employee to carry out his responsibilities in the capacity of "Area Manager"
for the Karimnagar District of Telangana by its Appointment Letter dated 30.11.2010. As per his job profile, the defendant was expected to achieve the sales targets set by the plaintiff for the area designated by plaintiff for him i.e. Karimnagar District of Telangana. Furthermore, the defendant was also to supervise two junior level employees of the Sales Team, who were directly under his supervision and control and were reporting to him. The performance of the defendant as "Area Manager" was to be assessed periodically and it was dependent upon his ability or inability to achieve the sales target set for him by the plaintiff.
3. The responsibilities of the defendant included promoting and selling of the products of the plaintiff to the stockists in his area and for which he was paid a monthly remuneration as per the terms of his Appointment Letter. As per the terms of CS DJ 35/20 M/s. Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Uppu Thirupathi Page no.2 of 21 Appointment Letter, the defendant was paid a total salary of Rs.12,000/- per month, which included his basic salary of Rs.3,000/-; HRA of Rs.4,500/- and Conveyance of Rs.4,500/-. In addition to the fixed salary which was being drawn by the defendant, he was also entitled to applicable fieldwork allowances and travel entitlements. The defendant was also entitled to earn incentives based on sales of plaintiff company's products in defendant's assigned areas and based on his performance to achieve his individual sales targets. The sale target fixed by the plaintiff for an area was based on various factors and included the cost incurred by the plaintiff on the salaries paid to the members of the sales team for a particular area, the cost of the production, logistics, advertisements and other promotional activities to be performed by the plaintiff, cost of distribution of free samples and also other administrative and miscellaneous costs incurred by the plaintiff for running of its concern. In case the sales representative of an area failed to achieve his or her sales target, it resulted in financial burden to the plaintiff and eventually would cause loss to the plaintiff.
4. The plaintiff provided two sales representatives to the defendant as part of his team, whose remuneration was borne by the plaintiff. The defendant was given an individual sales target of Rs.53,00,000/- to be achieved for the Financial Year 2018- 2019. The sales target was revised every year but was always kept at a conservative level. Despite the sales target being set at a conservative level, the defendant from the very beginning was CS DJ 35/20 M/s. Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Uppu Thirupathi Page no.3 of 21 unable to achieve his individual sales targets. He had only managed to achieve a sales target of Rs.39,63,000/- for the financial year 2018-2019 and as such there was always a big gap between the actual sales achieved by the defendant vis-a-vis the sales target set by the plaintiff. The defendant could only manage to achieve a sales target of 74.8% for the abovesaid period and for the subsequent period from April, 2019 until August, 2019, the defendant could only manage sales to the tune of Rs.5,67,000/- as against the sales target of Rs.21,88,000/- as set by the plaintiff. Thereby the target achievement for Karimnagar area had further worsened from 74.8% to 25.09%. Notwithstanding these factors, for the said period between April 2019 to August, 2019 the average sales (primary sales per month) for Karimnagar area decreased from Rs.3,30,250/- to Rs.1,13,400/-. Thus, the plaintiff suffered a loss of Rs.2,16,850/- per month and a total loss of sales for the period between April 2019 - August 2019 to the tune of Rs.10,84,250/-.
5. The defendant was not only negligent but also failed to perform his obligations/duties as what was expected from him. All this resulted in heavy losses to the plaintiff company. On 16.05.2019, plaintiff organize Sales Review meeting to be held at its headquarters in Delhi. The HR department of the plaintiff company on 03.05.2019 informed the defendant via email about the aforesaid the Sales Review meeting. The train tickets of the defendant was also emailed to him in order to enable him to attend the aforesaid meeting. However, on 14.05.2019, the CS DJ 35/20 M/s. Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Uppu Thirupathi Page no.4 of 21 defendant through an email informed the plaintiff that he was proceeding on leave from 14.05.2019 to 18.05.2019 on account of his father's illness. In response to which the HR department of the plaintiff sent an email on 15.05.2019 to the defendant informing him that he should attend the pending Sales Review meeting at its headquarters in Delhi upon resuming his duties, post the expiry of his leave period and before proceeding on field work. After expiry of his leave period on 19.05.2019, the defendant instead of resuming his duties proceeded on unsanctioned leave without giving any intimation to the HR department of plaintiff company. On 27.05.2019 an email was sent to the defendant by the HR department of the plaintiff for attending the pending sales review meeting to which defendant sent two emails to the plaintiff company dated 29.05.2019 and 30.05.2019 whereby he informed the plaintiff that he was proceeding on a 15 days sick leave. Alongwith said emails, the defendant also submitted some medical prescriptions and an X- ray report which he had sought from a private medial practitioner.
6. The plaintiff on receipt of defendant's emails dated 29.05.2019 and 30.05.2019 was thus compelled to postpone its pending Sales Review meeting with the defendant to 14.06.2019 and also gave intimation to the defendant vide its email dated 31.05.2019 that the pending Sales Review meeting was rescheduled. Again some time on 12.06.2019, the defendant sent another email to the plaintiff stating that he had been advised one CS DJ 35/20 M/s. Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Uppu Thirupathi Page no.5 of 21 month's bed rest by his doctor and that he would be proceeding on sick leave till 12.07.2019. The defendant also assured for submitting an MRI scan report for his sickness shortly but he never did so. Thereafter, the HR department of the plaintiff company sent another email dated 19.06.2019 to the defendant seeking his medical prescription and MRI scan report. Defendant replied to the said email of the plaintiff vide his email dated 24.06.2019 wherein he submitted his latest medical prescription and sought the plaintiff's financial aid for undergoing MRI Scan. The HR department of the plaintiff informed the defendant vide its email dated 27.06.2019 that his entire leave balance with the plaintiff company would get exhausted on 29.06.2019 and thereafter any leave taken by him would be considered as 'leave without pay'.
7. On 12.07.2019, the defendant vide his email shared medical prescription dated 08.07.2019 wherein it was mentioned that the defendant was fit to do normal duties but was to avoid travelling for long hours. Vide said email the defendant sought to work as pillion rider on a two wheeler for doing sales pitch for plaintiff's products and supervise its affairs for three months in that particular manner. On 17.07.2019, the plaintiff in response to defendant's email dated 12.07.2019 submitted that the defendant was contradicting his own version of the doctor's advice to avoid driving and travelling for long hours and therefore, the plaintiff informed the defendant and they would like to get a second opinion regarding his medical condition from CS DJ 35/20 M/s. Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Uppu Thirupathi Page no.6 of 21 a medial practitioner appointed by the plaintiff. The defendant vide his another email dated 17.07.2019 reiterated his earlier stand and wanted the plaintiff to give him medical aid of Rs.30,000/- for meeting his medical expenses.
8. On 03.08.2019, the defendant expressed his readiness and gave his consent for getting a second opinion from a medical practitioner appointed by the plaintiff and sought permission of the plaintiff to resume duty. In the said email, the defendant requested the plaintiff to pay his salary during his unauthorized sick leave i.e. after exhausting his quota of sick leaves to which he was entitled as per the leave norms of the plaintiff company. Plaintiff vide its email dated 06.08.2019 while giving clarifications regarding the leave norms and salary entitlement for any leaves and/or unauthorized leaves, informed the defendant that the plaintiff had organized a medical checkup near the defendant's house for his convenience on 14.08.2019.
9. On 13.08.2019, the plaintiff informed the defendant vide email and also by whatsapp message, the date, time and venue for undergoing the medical checkup and he was also specifically informed to make himself available for medical checkup on 14.08.2019. On 14.08.2019, Mr. Yugandhar, Sales Manager of the plaintiff company kept waiting for the defendant at the venue but the defendant failed to show up for his medical checkup, thereby showing malafide intent of deceiving the plaintiff about being unwell and thus not being able to perform his CS DJ 35/20 M/s. Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Uppu Thirupathi Page no.7 of 21 responsibilities towards the job assigned to him. Despite the lackadaisical and irresponsible behaviour of the defendant, the plaintiff gave him one more opportunity to his bona fides and rescheduled the said appointment at 1:30 pm on the same day itself and also informed the defendant about the same in advance. The defendant however instead of reaching the scheduled place called up the Sales Manager Mr. Yugandhar at about 2:30 PM and threatened him with dire consequences including filing of a false police complaint against him. Mr. Yugandhar came to know about the said police complaint when he has received a call from police station Karimnagar, Telangana. Mr. Yugandhar went to the police station and explain to the Station-in-Charge of the police station the entire sequence of events and what had actually happened and how the defendant was trying to implicate him by raising false charges. The Station-in-Charge understood the whole matter and after seeing that there is no merit in the complaint of the defendant decided that no further action was required to be taken against Mr. Yugandhar, the senior employee of the plaintiff, who was merely doing his duty.
10. It is stated that since there was a considerable fall in the sales of the plaintiff's product for the Karimnagar area, where the defendant was assigned Area Manager, continuing with the defendant was not an economically viable option for the plaintiff company, therefore, plaintiff decided to terminate the services of the defendant as per the terms of his appointment letter by way of termination simpliciter letter dated 26.08.2019 served on the CS DJ 35/20 M/s. Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Uppu Thirupathi Page no.8 of 21 defendant by registered post. On termination of employment, the defendant was paid his entire dues to which he was entitled to till the date of his termination as well as an additional one month's pay in lieu of notice. The full and final cheque for an amount of Rs.95,964/- drawn on Punjab & Sind Bank dated 26.08.2019 was paid to him which was also duly encashed by the defendant.
11. On 28.08.2019, the plaintiff received a complaint against the defendant from one its stockists "Nandini Medical Agencies"
informing that the defendant was indulging in unfair trade practices of selling the plaintiff's products to another stockiest in Hyderabad at a cheaper rate than what was prescribed for that area thereby not only infiltering an area not designated to the defendant by also causing loss to the stockists and the field personnel of that area of their rightful earnings. All these illegal acts of the defendant caused a serious dent to the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff and also impacted the sales of the plaintiff, thereby causing considerable loss to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also reliably learnt from its stockists that despite termination, the defendant continues to falsely represent the plaintiff and is furthermore trying to malign the image and reputation of the plaintiff . Due to aforesaid acts of the defendant in his assigned area, the plaintiff's company was compelled to take precautionary measure by issuing a Public Notice on 26.12.2019 in the local leading English newspaper by informing the general public that the defendant had been relieved from plaintiff's services since 26.08.2019 and had no authority of CS DJ 35/20 M/s. Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Uppu Thirupathi Page no.9 of 21 whatsoever nature to transact any business or to receive any money on behalf of the plaintiff company.
12. The defendant by his acts is trying his best to sabotage the sales and profits of the plaintiff by misleading / misrepresenting to the stockists about the products of the plaintiff thereby causing considerable loss to the plaintiff, which cannot be compensated in monetary terms alone and which shall have far reaching consequences in damaging the image and reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff.
13. The defendant despite settlement of all the dues after his termination continued to threaten the plaintiff with legal consequences and also threatened to harass the plaintiff's Sales Manager Mr. Yugandhar. Mr. Yugandhar on 30.08.2019 filed a police complaint against the defendant at Karimnagar District Police Station. The defendant visited the said police station and gave an undertaking that he would henceforth not do any harm to Mr. Yugandhar by harassing him in any manner. Thereafter, the plaintiff served a legal notice dated 11.09.2019 upon the defendant for breach of his appointment letter and for other illegal acts committed by him, which was duly served upon him. In the said notice, plaintiff also claimed damages to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- with interest @24% per annum thereon. The defendant replied to the said notice vide his reply dated 24.09.2019. Thereafter, the defendant has also filed a false and frivolous complaint against the plaintiff company before the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Karimnagar District Telangana CS DJ 35/20 M/s. Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Uppu Thirupathi Page no.10 of 21 alleging that his services had been terminated illegally. Plaintiff filed a detailed response to the said complaint vide letter dated 29.10.2019. Vide order dated 11.11.2019 of Deputy Labour Commissioner, Karimnagar District Telangana, the said complaint was disposed of.
14. The plaintiff company received a letter dated 13.12.2019 from the defendant demanding therein reinstatement of his service. Plaintiff vide its letter dated 08.01.2020 clarified that the defendant had no right for reinstatement of services with back wages and that his termination was done in accordance with termination letter dated 30.11.2010. Hence, the plaintiff has filed the present suit.
15. Summons of the suit were issued to the defendant. Despite service of summons, none appeared on behalf of defendant. So, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 12.02.2021.
16. Thereafter, Plaintiff Company examined its Authorised signatory Sh. Pradeep Gautam as PW-1. PW1 has reiterated the contents of plaint in his affidavit by way of evidence Ex. PW-1/A and relied upon following documents :-
1. Board Resolution dated 22.11.2019 is Ex.PW1/1;
2. Computer generated copy of survey published by IQVA (formerly Quintiles and IMS Health, Inc., is an American Multinational Company) is Ex.PW1/2;
CS DJ 35/20 M/s. Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Uppu Thirupathi Page no.11 of 21
3. Computer generated copy of Annual Return of plaintiff company before the ROC is Ex.PW1/3;
4. Computer generated copy of the Annual Report of the plaintiff company for the year 2018-2019 is Ex.PW1/4;
5. Computer generated copy of list of various sales representatives and area managers, who are / were working for the plaintiff company is Ex.PW1/5;
6. Computer generated copy of the manual issued by the Sales Team of the plaintiff company is Ex.PW1/6;
(No document is given the exhibit number as Ex.PW1/7 in my evidence by way of affidavit).
7. Copy of the Appointment Letter dated 30.11.2010 issued by the plaintiff company is Ex.PW1/8;
8. Computer generated copy of the list of stockiest and medical practitioners provided to the defendant by the plaintiff company is Ex.PW1/9;
9. Computer generated copy of letter provided by the defendant for individual sales targets to be achieved by him is Ex.PW1/10;
10. Computer generated copy of financial remuneration paid by the plaintiff company to the defendant is Ex.PW1/11;
11. Computer generated document showing the sales achieved by the defendant as Area Manager is Ex.PW1/12;
13. Computer generated document in support of the samples and promotional items amounting to INR 2,21,142/- provided to the defendant is Ex.PW1/13;
CS DJ 35/20 M/s. Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Uppu Thirupathi Page no.12 of 21
14. Copy of the email dated 03.05.2019 issued by the HR of plaintiff is Ex.PW1/14;
15. Computer generated copy of E-ticket booked by the plaintiff company for the defendant is Ex.PW1/15;
16. Copies of emails dated 14.05.2019 and 15.052019 exchanged between the plaintiff and the defendant are Ex.PW1/16 & Ex.PW1/17, respectively.
17. Copies of emails dated 27.05.2018, 29.05.2019 and 30.05.2019 are Ex.PW1/18, Ex.PW1/19 & Ex.PW1/20, respectively.
18. Copy of email dated 31.05.2019 from the plaintiff company to the defendant is Ex.PW1/21;
19. Copy of email dated 12.06.2019 received from the defendant is Ex.PW1/22;
20. Copy of email dated 19.06.2019 from the plaintiff's HR department to the defendant and defendant's response are Ex.PW1/23 and Ex.PW1/24, respectively;
21. Copy of email dated 27.06.2019 sent by the plaintiff to the defendant is Ex.PW1/25;
22. Copy of email dated 12.07.2019 sent by the defendant and the response of the plaintiff are Ex.PW1/26 and Ex.PW1/27, respectively;
23. Copy of email dated 03.08.2019 from the defendant to the plaintiff is Ex.PW1/28;
24. Copy of email dated 06.08.2019 sent by the plaintiff to the defendant is Ex.PW1/29;
25. Copies of email dated 13.08.2019 and whatsapp messages dated 13.08.2019 and 14.08.2019 from the CS DJ 35/20 M/s. Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Uppu Thirupathi Page no.13 of 21 plaintiff to thedefendant are Ex.PW1/30, Ex.PW1/31 and Ex.PW1/32, respectively;
26. Copy of email dated 14.08.2019 sent by the plaintiff company to the defendant is Ex.PW1/33;
27. Copy of false police complaint dated 14.08.2019 filed by the defendant against the plaintiff's sales manager alongwith its English translation exhibited as Ex.PW1/34 in my evidence by way of affidavit is de-exhibited and marked as Mark A;
28. Copy of the termination letter dated 26.08.2019 issued by the plaintiff company to the defendant and a copy of the cheque issued to the defendant towards full and final settlement are Ex.PW1/35 and Ex.PW1/36, respectively.
29. Copy of the complaint dated 28.08.2019 received by the plaintiff from one of the stockiest against the defendant alongwith its English translation exhibited as Ex.PW1/37 in my evidence by way of affidavit is de-exhibited and marked as Mark B;
30. Copy of police complaint dated 30.08.2019 filed by the plaintiff's sales manager Mr. Yugandhar against the defendant is exhibited as Ex.PW1/38 in my evidence by way of affidavit is de-exhibited and marked as Mark C ;
31. Copy of Undertaking given by the defendant dated 30.08.2019 before the Police Station at Karimnagar alongwith its English translation is exhibited as Ex.PW1/39 in my evidence by way of affidavit is de-exhibited and marked as Mark D;
CS DJ 35/20 M/s. Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Uppu Thirupathi Page no.14 of 21
32. Copy of the plaintiff's legal notice dated 11.09.2019 is Ex.PW1/40;
33. Copy of the complaint filed by the defendant against the plaintiff before the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Karimnagar alongwith English translation exhibited as Ex.PW1/41 in my evidence by way of affidavit is de-exhibited and marked as Mark E;
34. Copy of the letter received from the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Karimnagar dated 21.09.2019 exhibited as Ex.PW1/42 in my evidence by way of affidavit is de-exhibited and marked as Mark F;
35. Copies of letters dated 01.10.2019, 29.10.2019 and 06.11.2019 from the plaintiff to the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Karimnagar are Ex.PW1/43, Ex.PW1/44 and Ex.PW1/45, respectively.
36. Copy of Public Notice dated 24.12.2019 published in Indian Express Warangal District exhibited as Ex.PW1/46 in my evidence by way of affidavit is de-exhibited and marked as Mark G;
37. In support of aforesaid electronic record, I am also relying on the certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. The same is Ex.PW1/47.
17. No other witness was examined by the plaintiff and ex- parte PE was closed vide order dated 24.02.2023.
18. This court has heard the arguments of counsel for plaintiff CS DJ 35/20 M/s. Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Uppu Thirupathi Page no.15 of 21 and counsel for defendant and perused the record carefully.
19. In order to support his oral testimony, PW1 has filed on record the documents i.e. Board Resolution dated 22.11.2019 (Ex.PW1/1); Computer generated copy of survey published by IQVA (formerly Quintiles and IMS Health, Inc., is an American Multinational Company) (Ex.PW1/2); Computer generated copy of Annual Return of plaintiff company before the ROC (Ex.PW1/3); Computer generated copy of the Annual Report of the plaintiff company for the year 2018-2019 (Ex.PW1/4); Computer generated copy of list of various sales representatives and area managers, who are / were working for the plaintiff company is (Ex.PW1/5); Computer generated copy of the manual issued by the Sales Team of the plaintiff company (Ex.PW1/6); Copy of the Appointment Letter dated 30.11.2010 issued by the plaintiff company (Ex.PW1/8); Computer generated copy of the list of stockiest and medical practitioners provided to the defendant by the plaintiff company (Ex.PW1/9); Computer generated copy of letter provided by the defendant for individual sales targets to be achieved by him (Ex.PW1/10);Computer generated copy of financial remuneration paid by the plaintiff company to the defendant (Ex.PW1/11); Computer generated document showing the sales achieved by the defendant as Area Manager (Ex.PW1/12); Computer generated document in support of the samples and promotional items amounting to INR 2,21,142/- provided to the defendant (Ex.PW1/13); Copy of the email dated 03.05.2019 CS DJ 35/20 M/s. Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Uppu Thirupathi Page no.16 of 21 issued by the HR of plaintiff (Ex.PW1/14); Computer generated copy of E-ticket booked by the plaintiff company for the defendant (Ex.PW1/15); Copies of emails dated 14.05.2019 and 15.052019 exchanged between the plaintiff and the defendant (Ex.PW1/16 & Ex.PW1/17, respectively); Copies of emails dated 27.05.2018, 29.05.2019 and 30.05.2019 (Ex.PW1/18, Ex.PW1/19 & Ex.PW1/20, respectively). Copy of email dated 31.05.2019 from the plaintiff company to the defendant (Ex.PW1/21); Copy of email dated 12.06.2019 received from the defendant (Ex.PW1/22); Copy of email dated 19.06.2019 from the plaintiff's HR department to the defendant and defendant's response (Ex.PW1/23 and Ex.PW1/24, respectively); Copy of email dated 27.06.2019 sent by the plaintiff to the defendant (Ex.PW1/25); Copy of email dated 12.07.2019 sent by the defendant and the response of the plaintiff (Ex.PW1/26 and Ex.PW1/27), respectively; Copy of email dated 03.08.2019 from the defendant to the plaintiff (Ex.PW1/28); Copy of email dated 06.08.2019 sent by the plaintiff to the defendant (Ex.PW1/29); Copies of email dated 13.08.2019 and whatsapp messages dated 13.08.2019 and 14.08.2019 from the plaintiff to the defendant (Ex.PW1/30, Ex.PW1/31 and Ex.PW1/32, respectively); Copy of email dated 14.08.2019 sent by the plaintiff company to the defendant (Ex.PW1/33); Copy of false police complaint dated 14.08.2019 filed by the defendant against the plaintiff's sales manager alongwith its English translation (Mark A); Copy of the termination letter dated 26.08.2019 issued by the plaintiff CS DJ 35/20 M/s. Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Uppu Thirupathi Page no.17 of 21 company to the defendant and a copy of the cheque issued to the defendant towards full and final settlement (Ex.PW1/35 and Ex.PW1/36, respectively); Copy of the complaint dated 28.08.2019 received by the plaintiff from one of the stockiest against the defendant alongwith its English translation (Mark B); Copy of police complaint dated 30.08.2019 filed by the plaintiff's sales manager Mr. Yugandhar against the defendant (Mark C); Copy of Undertaking given by the defendant dated 30.08.2019 before the Police Station at Karimnagar alongwith its English translation (Mark D); Copy of the plaintiff's legal notice dated 11.09.2019 (Ex.PW1/40); Copy of the complaint filed by the defendant against the plaintiff before the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Karimnagar alongwith English translation (Mark E); Copy of the letter received from the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Karimnagar dated 21.09.2019 (Mark F); Copies of letters dated 01.10.2019, 29.10.2019 and 06.11.2019 from the plaintiff to the Dy. Labour Commissioner, Karimnagar (Ex.PW1/43, Ex.PW1/44 and Ex.PW1/45, respectively). Copy of Public Notice dated 24.12.2019 published in Indian Express Warangal District (Mark G); Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act (Ex.PW1/47).
20. In the present suit, plaintiff company examined Sh. Pradeep Gautam, AR of plaintiff company as PW1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and deposed that on 28.08.2019, the plaintiff received a complaint against the defendant from one of its stockists "Nandini Medical Agencies"
CS DJ 35/20 M/s. Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Uppu Thirupathi Page no.18 of 21 informing that the defendant was indulging in unfair trade practices of selling the plaintiff's products to another stockiest in Hyderabad at a cheaper rate than what was prescribed for that area thereby not only infiltering an area not designated to the defendant by also causing loss to the stockists and the field personnel of that area of their rightful earnings. All these illegal acts of the defendant caused a serious dent to the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff and also impacted the sales of the plaintiff, thereby causing considerable loss to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has also reliably learnt from its stockists that despite termination, the defendant continues to falsely represent the plaintiff and is furthermore trying to malign the image and reputation of the plaintiff. Due to aforesaid acts of the defendant in his assigned area, the plaintiff's company was compelled to take precautionary measure by issuing a Public Notice on 26.12.2019 in the local leading English newspaper by informing the general public that the defendant had been relieved from plaintiff's services since 26.08.2019 and had no authority of whatsoever nature to transact any business or to receive any money on behalf of the plaintiff company. Defendant by misleading/ misrepresenting to the stockiests about the products of the plaintiff thereby causing considerable loss to the plaintiff, which loss cannot be compensated in monetary terms alone and which shall have far reaching consequences in damaging the image and reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff. Copy of complaint dated 28.08.2019 received by the plaintiff from one of the stockiest against the defendant along with its English CS DJ 35/20 M/s. Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Uppu Thirupathi Page no.19 of 21 translation.
21. Under Section 101 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 it is the obligation of the plaintiff to prove the facts pleaded by him. Section 101 Indian Evidence Act is as under:
101. Burden of proof-Whoever desires any Court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.
When a person is bound to prove the existence of any fact, is said that the burden of proof lies on that person.
22. Perusal of record shows that plaintiff has relied upon the document i.e. copy of complaint dated 28.08.2016 received by the plaintiff from one of the stockiest against the defendant along with English Translation which is earlier exhibited as Ex.PW1/37, later de-exhibited and marked as Mark B. Plaintiff company has not examined any stockiests from whom it received complaints that defendant indulge in unfair trade pratices. Further, no evidence has been led by the plaintiff to prove that because of misrepresentation and indulgement of defendant in unfair trade practices plaintiff has suffered a loss of Rs.5,00,000/-. Plaintiff company examined only PW1 to prove its case. Testimony of PW1 is not helpful to prove the fact that plaintiff is entitled for recovery of damages of Rs.5,00,000/-. Since damages have to be proved by way of documentary evidence, no amount of any oral evidence can prove this fact without production of original documents or examining the witnesses. In the absence of such documentary evidence, the say of PW1 can not be believed. Since it CS DJ 35/20 M/s. Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Uppu Thirupathi Page no.20 of 21 is only self serving testimony of the plaintiff company, therefore, the plaintiff utterly failed to establish that defendant caused damages to the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/-.
23. In view of the aforesaid discussion, present suit stands dismissed. No order as to cost.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room, after due compliance.
Digitally signedTyped to the dictation directly, DR by DR
HARDEEP
corrected and pronounced in the HARDEEP KAUR
open court on 01.05.2023. KAUR Date:
2023.05.02
12:45:08 +0530
(Dr. Hardeep Kaur)
Additional District Judge-04,
South District, Saket Courts, New Delhi
CS DJ 35/20 M/s. Jagsonpal Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Vs. Uppu Thirupathi Page no.21 of 21