Delhi District Court
District Judge 05 :New Delhi District vs Dr. Jain Video On Wheel Ltd on 2 May, 2018
IN THE COURT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR: ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE 05 :NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
PATIALA HOUSE COURTS, NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No. 57500/16
M/s Atlanta Systems Pvt Ltd.
Having its Registered Office at :
M135, 2nd Floor,
(Opp. Super Bazar), Connaught Place,
New Delhi110001.
Through its Director
Sh. Sandeep Narula ................Plaintiff
Versus
Dr. Jain Video On Wheel Ltd.
Scindia Villa, Ring Road,
Sarojini Nagar,
New Delhi110023. ..............Defendant
Date of institution of the case : 22.03.2016
Date of arguments : 02.05.2018
Date of judgment : 02.05.2018
JUDGMENT (ORAL) :
1. The plaintiff has filed the suit against the defendant for recovery of Rs.3,25,806/ with pendente lite and future interest.
2. The plaintiff is a company duly registered with the Registrar of Companies. Sh. Sandeep Narula, Director of the plaintiffcompany is authorized to institute the present suit and verify the pleadings etc. The plaintiff is one of the leading manufacturers, supplier and service provider of electronics equipment i.e GPS based Vehicle Tracking System & its software, voice logger etc and has its customers all over the country. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendant is a limited company dealing in medical mobile service in different parts of the country. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant was in business dealings with the plaintiff since CS No.57500/16 Page 1 of 4 M/s Atlanta Systems Pvt Ltd vs. Dr. Jain Video On Wheel Ltd 2009. Defendant used to place purchase orders through telephone to the plaintiff and plaintiff was supplying him the goods/material as per orders besides providing services of the technicians for the installation of GPS systems etc. Plaintiff was raising invoices/bills for the supply of goods/services against the defendant.
2.1 It is further the case of the plaintiff that plaintiff was maintaining a running account of the defendant in the computer system in the regular course of business wherein entries were made of the amount of the goods/material supplied to the defendant as well as of the payments made by the defendant. As per plaintiff, a sum of Rs.3,25,806/ (Rs.2,41,338/ towards principal amount + interest @ 12% per annum calculated till 26.2.2016) is due from the defendant towards the plaintiff as per the statement of the account as on 9.4.2013 with respect to goods/material and services rendered to the defendant. Plaintiff made several reminders to the defendant to make the payment but in vain. Plaintiff has prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be decreed.
3. Defendant was duly served in the present case. However, defendant did not appear in the court at any point of time nor filed written statement. As none was present on behalf of the defendant in the court, the defendant was proceeded ex parte on 26.8.2016 by the Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
4. Plaintiffcompany in support of its case has examined its Director Sandeep Narula as PW1 and S. Krishna, Accounts Manager as PW2. PW1 has deposed on the lines of the averments made in the plaint. PW1 has proved Resolution dated 17.3.2016 in his favour as Ex.PW1/A; legal notice dated 18.3.2016 as Ex.PW1/D; legal notice and original CS No.57500/16 Page 2 of 4 M/s Atlanta Systems Pvt Ltd vs. Dr. Jain Video On Wheel Ltd postal/courier receipt as Ex.PW1/D (colly.); print outs of the emails dated 14.04.2013 21.4.2013, 11.5.2013, 11.9.2013, 15.9.2013 and 17.9.2013 sent by the plaintiff to the defendant as Ex.PW1/E (colly.) and Certificate u/S 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.PW1/F.
5. PW2 S. Krishna has deposed that he has been working in the plaintiff company since 2003 and is posted as Accounts Manager since 2012. As per PW2, he has personally dealt with the accounts of the defendant company and the 28 bills raised against the defendant bears his signatures on behalf of the plaintiffcompany. PW2 has proved the aforesaid 28 bills as Ex.PW2/A (colly.). PW2 has further proved the statement of account relating to the defendant maintained in the computer through Tally Software as Ex.PW2/B.
6. I have heard Ms. Geeta Dhingra, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff. Ld. Counsel has contended that the present suit has been filed within the period of limitation and in view of the evidence on record, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be decreed. In support of her contentions, she has relied upon judgments Krishna Life Styles Technologies Ltd vs. Kanwaljeet Singh, 239 (2017) DLT 525; Ring Road Car Clinic Burmah Shell Petrol Pump vs. H L Advani, 2009 (110) DRJ 667; Rajesh Kumari vs. Prem Chand Jain, 67 (1997) DLT 502 and F.C.C. Projects Pvt. Ltd vs. Ashish Bhardwaj, 145 (2007) DLT 457 (DB).
7. I have gone through the file. Entries in the books of account, including maintained in an electronic form regularly kept in the course of business, are relevant u/s 34 o the Indian Evidence Act. A perusal of the statement of account (Ex.PW2/B) shows that it bears the signatures of PW2 as well as stamp of the plaintiff company. As per Ex.PW2/B, defendant CS No.57500/16 Page 3 of 4 M/s Atlanta Systems Pvt Ltd vs. Dr. Jain Video On Wheel Ltd made last payment to the plaintiff on 26.3.2013. Hence, the suit is within the period of limitation as the present suit has been filed on 22.3.2016. It also shows entries of adjustment of Rs.79,800/ on 02.05.2011 towards the two credit notices issued by the plaintiff to the defendant company. Further, 28 bills (Ex.PW2/A) also bear the signature of PW2. Legal notice dated 18.3.2016 (Ex.PW1/D) was dispatched to the defendant. Original postal and courier receipt have been placed on record by the defendant. A perusal of the various email also shows that plaintiff was repeatedly making demands for the payment of its outstanding amount from the defendant. However, defendant did not pay any heed to such reminders. In absence of any cross examination, the testimonies of the PW1 and PW2 have remained unrebutted and inspires confidence.
8. There is nothing on record that the rate of interest @ 12% was chargeable in case of nonpayment or delay in payment by the defendant to the plaintiff. There is no stipulation finds mentioned in this respect even on the invoices/bills raised by the plaintiff against the defendant.
9. In these circumstances and for the abovesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that plaintiff has proved its case against the defendant. However, interest claimed @ 12% per annum is on higher side. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed with costs against the defendant for a sum of Rs.3,25,806/ (Rs. Three lakhs, twenty five thousand thousand, eight hundred and six only) with pendente lite & future interest @ 9% per annum. Decree Sheet be drawn accordingly. Deficient court fee, if any, be paid. File be consigned to record room after due compliance. PRAVEEN Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2018.05.02 13:07:14 +0530 Announced today in open court (Praveen Kumar) today ie on 02.05.2018. Additional District Judge05 N.D.Distt.PHC/New Delhi.
CS No.57500/16 Page 4 of 4M/s Atlanta Systems Pvt Ltd vs. Dr. Jain Video On Wheel Ltd