Delhi District Court
Rishi Bhatia vs Zinga Travels Services Pvt Ltd on 9 June, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. DIVYA GUPTA,
CIVIL JUDGE-08, CENTRAL DISTRICT,
ROOM No.283, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
SUIT NO: 1764/17
CNR No. DLCT03-003447-2017
IN THE MATTER OF: -
RISHI BHATIA
Proprietor of M/s. Hilton Tours & Travels
At 204/21-22, 2nd Floor,
Aman Chamber, Main Pusa Road,
New Delhi-110060. ...PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
1. M/S. ZINGA TRAVELS SERVICES PVT. LTD.
Regd. Office at: -
S.C.F. 5, Sector 27-D. Chandigarh
Through its Director/ Principal Officer
2. SUDHIR GUPTA
Director of M/s. Zinga Travels Services Pvt. Ltd.
S.C.F. 5, Sector 27-D,
Chandigarh. ...DEFENDANTS
Date of Institution : 11.05.2017
Date of judgment : 09.06.2025
CS No.1764/17 Rishi Bhatia v. Zinga Travels Services Pvt. Ltd. Page 1 of 20
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall decide a suit for recovery of Rs.1,64,003/-.
BRIEF FACTS OF THE PLAINT:
2. The brief facts of the plaint as alleged by the plaintiff which are necessary for the disposal of the present suit are that:
a) That the Plaintiff is the proprietor of establishment namely M/s. Hilton Tours & Travels and the plaintiff is engaged in the business of tours and travels including air ticketing etc. for its clients/customers.
b) That the Defendant No.1 is a private limited company incorporated under the Companies Act and the Defendant No.2 is its Director/Principal Officer and responsible for/in charge of the day-to-
day business activities, conducts and affairs including business transaction forming the subject matter of the present suit.
c) It is alleged that in May, 2015, the plaintiff was running his abovesaid proprietary concern from the premises bearing No. 47/21-22, F-107, First Floor, Aman Chambers, Main Pusa Road, Old Rajendra Nagar, CS No.1764/17 Rishi Bhatia v. Zinga Travels Services Pvt. Ltd. Page 2 of 20 New Delhi and that in the beginning of May, 2015, one Sh. Rana Kamakhya Pratap Singh approached the plaintiff at his aforesaid office on the premise that he has been working with/for M/s. Zinga Tavels Pvt. Ltd. (defendant No.1) and claimed that the said company is a domestic and international ticketing agent. On the said basis Sh. Rana asked the plaintiff to start business relations with M/s. Zinga Travels Pvt. Ltd. and for that Sh. Rana Kamakhya Pratap Singh visited the plaintiff at his office.
d) That the plaintiff, as per the demand of the defendants, handed over an undated cheque bearing No.000067 amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lac Only) drawn upon HDFC Bank, Rajinder Nagar, Delhi to the defendants as security.
e) The plaintiff booked following tickets: -
S. Client/ Booking Travel Ticket PNR Travel Invoice Billed No. Customer date Date No. No. descriptio No. amount name n
1. Mrs. Sadhna 26.05.15 22.06.15 926155 6E3KD DEL- ZTT/ Rs.1,00,131/-
Jain & Mr. 2662- 4 FRA- 15- Jitender Jain 663 CDG- 16/561 VIE-DEL 2. Mr. Abhishek 28.05.15 30.06.15 724924 58NVK DEL- ZTT/ Rs.48,920/- Jain 744394 R ZRH- 15- 9-50 AMS- 16/578 ZAG-VIE 3. Mr. Pradeep 08.06.15 16.06.15 8U9248 61Y2X VIE-FCO ZTT/ Rs.14,952/- CS No.1764/17 Rishi Bhatia v. Zinga Travels Services Pvt. Ltd. Page 3 of 20 Jain, Ishant 092907- Y 15- Jain & 2 910 16/645 others TOTAL Rs.1,64,003/-
f) It is alleged that the plaintiff duly and well within applicable time frame, made requisitions to the defendants for cancellation of the abovesaid three tickets and also furnished, as requested by the defendants, copies of related documents to the defendants, as visa was refused in the first case, customer/client declined in the second case and freight was cancelled in the third case. Accordingly, the plaintiff requested defendants to refund the aforesaid billed amounts of said three tickets to the plaintiff. That all the aforesaid three tickets were cancelled well within applicable time and defendants got the refund of said three tickets from the concerned Airlines but the defendants did not refund/repay the said amounts to the plaintiff.
g) It is further alleged that the plaintiff made numerous demands to the defendants for repaying/refunding the aforesaid total billed and charged amount of Rs.1,64,003/- to the plaintiff but the defendants had been evading/avoiding the said repayment/refund on one pretext or the other.
h) The plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 27.01.2016 to the defendants CS No.1764/17 Rishi Bhatia v. Zinga Travels Services Pvt. Ltd. Page 4 of 20 thereby demanding the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,64,003/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum from the defendants. Vide the said legal notice the plaintiff also requested the defendants to return the aforesaid security cheque bearing No.000067 amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- drawn upon HDFC Bank, Rajinder Nagar, Delhi to the plaintiff as the defendants have been illegally and wrongly withholding the said security cheque.
i) That the aforesaid legal notice was duly served upon the defendants but the defendants neither replied to the said legal notice nor paid the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,64,003/- to the plaintiff nor returned back the aforesaid security cheque to the plaintiff.
j) That the defendants at the extreme of their illegal, extraneous, malicious and fraudulent designs filled the date in the abovesaid security cheque and presented the same for encashment on or about 20/21.01.2017 but as the wrongful and dishonest conduct of the defendants was patent, the plaintiff had already instructed his banker for stopping the payment/ encashment of the said security cheque.
k) In furtherance of their fraudulent and extraneous designs, gone to the extent of sending a legal notice dated nil, received by the plaintiff on CS No.1764/17 Rishi Bhatia v. Zinga Travels Services Pvt. Ltd. Page 5 of 20 02.03.2017, to the plaintiff through Advocate Sh. Vishal Garg Narwana wherein the defendant No.2, fabricated and concocted a story of grant of loan of Rs.5,00,000/- to the plaintiff by defendant No.1 and further concocted that the aforesaid cheque No.000067 was given by the plaintiff to the defendants in discharge of the abovesaid loan.
l) That the plaintiff duly replied the aforesaid legal notice of the defendants vide reply dated 04.03.2017 and the said reply was duly served upon the defendants and their counsel Sh. Vishal Garg Nirwana. However, the defendants failed to adhere to the demand made in abovesaid letter dated 04.03.2017 nor replied nor supplied the documents as demanded therein.
m) That ultimately the plaintiff vide reply dated 15.03.2017 replied the abovesaid legal notice dated nil of the defendants' copies of the said reply was also forwarded by the plaintiff to the Commissioner of Police, Delhi and SHO, Police Station New Rajindra Nagar, Delhi.
n) That since the defendants deliberately and intentionally failed and neglected to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,64,003/-, the defendants also rendered themselves liable to pay a sum of Rs.69,127/- as interest from June, 2015 till March, 2017 @24% per annum.
CS No.1764/17 Rishi Bhatia v. Zinga Travels Services Pvt. Ltd. Page 6 of 20
3. Hence, the present suit for following reliefs:
a) To pass a decree in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants for recovery of Rs.1,64,003/- on account of outstanding principal amount and;
b) To pass a Decree in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendants for recovery of Rs.69,127/- as interest from June, 2015 till March, 2017 on the said due amount @ 24% per annum alongwith pendente-lite and future interest on the said principal amount at the said rate from April, 2017 till realization.
WRITTEN STATEMENT:
4. The defendant filed written statement controverting the claims of the plaintiff while submitting that the present case has been filed without any cause of action in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant. That the plaintiff has prayed for the inordinate rate of interest in the present suit. That defendant doesn't owe any liability towards the plaintiff. That the plaintiff is guilty of supressioveri and suggestiofalsi and has concealed the true and vital facts. It is alleged that the plaintiff has concealed the factum of settling the account for Rs.1,45,000/- and received the same in cash from the defendant.
5. In reply on merits, the contents of para No.1, 2 and 3 are either admitted CS No.1764/17 Rishi Bhatia v. Zinga Travels Services Pvt. Ltd. Page 7 of 20 or stated to be matter of record. The contents of para No.4 are admitted to the extent that Sh. Rana Kamakhya Pratap Singh was working with the defendant but he was never ever authorized to visit the premises of the plaintiff for any official purpose. Defendant has admitted having registered office at S.C.F.5, Sector 27-D, Chandigarh and Branch/Head Office at 230/231, Tower B-3, Level-II, phase-I Tech Park, Sohna Road, Sector-49, Gurgaon, Haryana but submitted that both the offices had been locked out by back in the year 2016 and 2015 respectively due to heavy losses. It is further stated that it is the plaintiff who had asked for the friendly loan from the defendant for meeting out certain dire need and the defendant helped the plaintiff by providing friendly loan and the plaintiff issued this cheque with assurance that same would be encashed as and when presented. It is also submitted that the it is the plaintiff whose intention turned malafide and facing a criminal case u/s 138 N.I. Act, 1881. It is further stated that the plaintiff has not entered his appearance in the same matter and the Hon'ble Court has issued proceedings u/s 82 Cr.P.C., against the plaintiff. Defendant has admitted that the tickets were booked by the defendant and that the tickets were sought to be cancelled by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff sought refund CS No.1764/17 Rishi Bhatia v. Zinga Travels Services Pvt. Ltd. Page 8 of 20 of the said cancelled tickets. However, it is submitted that the said payment of Rs.1,64,003/- was settled for Rs.1,45,000/- as the defendant had to bear cancellation charges and the settled amount was also paid in the month of September, 2015 in three installments of Rs.48,000/-, Rs.48,000/- and Rs.49,000/- in cash. Defendant has further submitted that it is also correct that the plaintiff demanded the security cheque bearing No.000067 for Rs.5,00,000/- but the same was never a security cheque and was towards repayment of friendly loan. It is wrong and denied that the answering defendant is liable for the interest of Rs.69,127/- from June 2015 till March 2017 @24% in accordance of trade, custom and usage.
REPLICATION:
6. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement of the defendant denying the case of the defendant; reiterating and reaffirming the case as set up by the plaintiff in the plaint.
ISSUES:
7. From the pleadings of parties, following issues were framed for trial vide CS No.1764/17 Rishi Bhatia v. Zinga Travels Services Pvt. Ltd. Page 9 of 20 order dated 16.03.2020:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of suit amount, as prayed for? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest, if any, at what rate and for which period?
OPP.
3. Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE:
8. In order to prove his case, plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 whose examination in chief is by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW-1/A. PW-1 relied upon following documents:
a) Ex.PW-1/1 Computerized copy of the Registration Certificate of proprietary concern under Delhi Shops & establishment Act.
b) Ex.PW-1/2 Photo copy of cheque No.000067 amounting to Rs.5 lakhs bearing the signatures of Rana Kamakhya Pratap Singh.
c) Ex.PW-1/3 (colly) Computerized copies of invoices raised by the defendants in relation to the transaction/tickets along with relevant mails.
d) Ex.PW-1/4 (colly.) (OSR) Computerized copies of the relevant CS No.1764/17 Rishi Bhatia v. Zinga Travels Services Pvt. Ltd. Page 10 of 20 bank account statements.
e) Ex.PW-1/5 (colly) Computerized copies of the e-mails exchanged between the plaintiff and defendants.
f) Ex.PW-1/6 Certificate U/S 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
g) Ex.PW-1/7 (colly.) (OSR) Photocopy of Office copy of Legal Notice dated 27.01.2016, postal receipts, courier receipts and tracking report.
h) Ex.PW-1/8 Copy of the letter/instructions given by the plaintiff to his banker is de-exhibited and now marked as Mark-A.
i) Ex.PW-1/9 (OSR) photocopy of the legal notice to Hilton Tours and Travels dated nil by advocate Vishal Garg Narwana.
j) Ex.PW-1/10 (colly.) (OSR) photocopy of office copy of reply dated
04.03.2017 to legal notice sent by Sh. Vishal Garg Narwana, advocate along with photocopies of courier receipts, photocopy speed post receipts and photocopy tracking reports.
k) Ex.PW-1/11 (colly.) (OSR) photocopy of office copy of reply dated 15.03.2017 to Sh. Vishal Garg Narwana, legal notice dated nil along with photocopies of four speed post receipts, photocopy of courier receipts and photocopy of tracking report.
CS No.1764/17 Rishi Bhatia v. Zinga Travels Services Pvt. Ltd. Page 11 of 20
l) Ex.PW-1/12 (OSR) (colly.) photocopy of certified copy of complaint under Section 138 r/w Section 142 of NI Act along with order sheet dated 13.06.2018 of the court of Sh. Iram Hasan, Judicial Magistrate (Chandigarh) in case titled Zinga Travel Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Hilton Tours & Travels & Anr.
9. On 14.11.2024, an application under Section 30(C) r/w Section 151 of CPC was moved on behalf of plaintiff along with supplementary affidavit of evidence. Said application was allowed vide order dated 19.11.2024 and plaintiff lead additional evidence by way of his affidavit Ex.PW-1/B and relied upon Ex.PW-1/8A: Letter from HDFC Bank Ltd. regarding cheque No.000067 issued in the name of Rishi Bhatia Service Private Limited.
10. PW-1 was duly examined and discharged. No cross examination of PW-1 was conducted as defendant was proceeded against ex-parte and none was present on behalf of defendant. Thereafter, ex-parte PE was closed on 28.01.2025.
CS No.1764/17 Rishi Bhatia v. Zinga Travels Services Pvt. Ltd. Page 12 of 20
11. I have heard the arguments on behalf of plaintiff and perused the record. My issue-wise findings are as follows:
ISSUES NO.1 & 2:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of suit amount, as prayed for? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest, if any, at what rate and for which period? OPP.
12. Both these issues are taken up together as they are inter-connected and the onus to prove these issues is upon the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff in brief is that defendant No.1 company is a domestic and international ticketing agent. That plaintiff got three tickets booked for Rs. 1,64,003/-. That plaintiff, as per the demand of the defendants, handed over an undated cheque bearing No.000067 amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lac Only) drawn upon HDFC Bank, Rajinder Nagar, Delhi to the defendants as security. However, the plaintiff duly and well within applicable time frame, made requisitions to the defendants for cancellation of the abovesaid three tickets for various reasons and furnished requisite defendants. Accordingly, the plaintiff CS No.1764/17 Rishi Bhatia v. Zinga Travels Services Pvt. Ltd. Page 13 of 20 requested defendants to refund/ repay the aforesaid billed amounts of said three tickets to the plaintiff. All three tickets were cancelled well within applicable time and defendants got the refund of said three tickets from the concerned Airlines but the defendants did not refund/repay the said amounts to the plaintiff and hence, the present case.
13. On the other hand, Defendant has admitted that the tickets were booked by the defendant and that the tickets were sought to be cancelled by the plaintiff and that the plaintiff sought refund of the said cancelled tickets. However, it is submitted that the said payment of Rs.1,64,003/- was settled for Rs.1,45,000/- as the defendant had to bear cancellation charges and the settled amount was also paid in the month of September, 2015 in three installments of Rs.48,000/-, Rs.48,000/- and Rs.49,000/- in cash. Defendant has further submitted that it is also correct that the plaintiff demanded the security cheque bearing No.000067 for Rs.5,00,000/- but the same was never a security cheque and was towards repayment of friendly loan. It is submitted on behalf of defendant it provided friendly loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the plaintiff and the plaintiff issued aforesaid cheque in lieu of that and one criminal complaint under CS No.1764/17 Rishi Bhatia v. Zinga Travels Services Pvt. Ltd. Page 14 of 20 section 138 NI Act is pending against the plaintiff filed by defendants.
14. Onus to prove the issue was upon the plaintiff. To prove his case plaintiff got himself examined as PW-1 and filed his evidence by way of an affidavit Ex. PW-1/A and then additional affidavit Ex. PW-1/B, wherein re-iterated his case.
15. At this it is pertinent to note that defendants failed to cross-examine PW-1 despite ample opportunity given and defendants were proceeded ex-parte. It is trite law that in absence of cross examination, testimony as it is can be deemed as correct. At this juncture, judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in M/s Eco Lab Inc. v. Eco Labs Ltd. 2011 (185) DLT 664 may be referred, wherein it was held:
Since the plaintiff's evidence has gone unrebutted as the defendant has also failed to cross-examine the witness of the plaintiff, the evidence filed by the plaintiff is liable to be taken as correct.
16. Since the defendant did not appear despite the fact that Court had granted an opportunity to the defendant to contest the suit, the averments CS No.1764/17 Rishi Bhatia v. Zinga Travels Services Pvt. Ltd. Page 15 of 20 in the plaint as well as the documents filed in support of the plaint have gone unchallenged.
17. Accordingly, the documents exhibited and identified by the plaintiff in his evidence are taken to be correct. The evidence that primarily supports the case of the plaintiff Ex.PW-1/3 (colly) Computerized copies of invoices raised by the defendants in relation to the transaction/tickets along with relevant mails; Ex.PW-1/4 (colly.) (OSR) Computerized copies of the relevant bank account statements; Ex.PW-1/5 (colly) Computerized copies of the e-mails exchanged between the plaintiff and defendants along with Ex.PW-1/6 which is Certificate U/S 65-B of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 plaintiff has further placed on record Ex.PW-1/7 (colly.) (OSR) which is Photocopy of Office copy of Legal Notice dated 27.01.2016, postal receipts, courier receipts and tracking report. Further filed copy of the letter/instructions given by the plaintiff to his banker Mark-A; Ex.PW-1/9 (OSR) photocopy of the legal notice to Hilton Tours and Travels dated nil by advocate Vishal Garg Narwana; Ex.PW-1/10 (colly.) (OSR) photocopy of office copy of reply dated 04.03.2017 to legal notice sent by Sh. Vishal Garg Narwana, advocate CS No.1764/17 Rishi Bhatia v. Zinga Travels Services Pvt. Ltd. Page 16 of 20 along with photocopies of courier receipts, photocopy speed post receipts and photocopy tracking reports; Ex.PW-1/11 (colly.) (OSR) photocopy of office copy of reply dated 15.03.2017 to Sh. Vishal Garg Narwana, legal notice dated nil along with photocopies of four speed post receipts, photocopy of courier receipts and photocopy of tracking report and Ex.PW-1/12 (OSR) (colly.) photocopy of certified copy of complaint under Section 138 r/w Section 142 of NI Act along with order sheet dated 13.06.2018 of the court of Sh. Iram Hasan, Judicial Magistrate (Chandigarh) in case titled Zinga Travel Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Hilton Tours & Travels & Anr.
18. The defendants have barely asserted that the said payment of Rs.1,64,003/- was settled for Rs.1,45,000/- as the defendant had to bear cancellation charges and the settled amount was also paid in the month of September, 2015 in three installments of Rs.48,000/-, Rs.48,000/- and Rs.49,000/- in cash. However, other than bare assertions, defendants have not placed on record any oral or documentary evidence to prove their defence. In the absence of any substantiated evidence, defendants have miserably failed to prove their defence. Further defendant failed to CS No.1764/17 Rishi Bhatia v. Zinga Travels Services Pvt. Ltd. Page 17 of 20 cross-examine the PW-1 despite ample opportunity which raises adverse inference against the defendants. Apart from bald assertions, there is nothing on record in support of the case of defendants.
19. The case of the plaintiff is that cause of action initially arose when tickets were booked, i.e. in May/June 2015 and payments were made by plaintiff to the defendants and when said tickets were cancelled and further arose when defendant got refund from airlines but did not pay the same to plaintiff and hence suit having been filed on 11.05.2017 is within limitation as per The Limitation Act.
20. The plaintiff is further claiming sum of Rs.69,127/- as interest from June, 2015 till March, 2017 @ 24% per annum, however, no evidence has been led to prove the same.
21. Hence, the plaintiff has successfully established his case on the touchstone of oral and documentary evidence led by him. Accordingly, plaintiff is found to be entitled to recovery of Rs.1,64,003/- from the defendants.
CS No.1764/17 Rishi Bhatia v. Zinga Travels Services Pvt. Ltd. Page 18 of 20
22. The plaintiff has claimed pendente-lite and future interest @ 24% per annum on the suit amount; however, no evidence has been brought forth as to the rate of interest. It is settled law that the Court is not bound by the rate of interest as claimed by the plaintiff even if contractual. The Court should be alive to the change of rate of interest regime and should refrain from awarding excessively high and unreasonable rates of interest (reference can be made to the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of M/s. Sangat Printers Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s. Wimpy International Ltd. RFA No.657/2003). In the given circumstances, since the interest @ 24 % per annum seems unreasonable, the Court deems it fit to exercise its discretion under Section 34 of CPC and award interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of present suit till actual realization of the decretal amount.
23. Accordingly, the issue No.1 is decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff and issue No.2 is decided against the plaintiff. RELIEF
24. In view of my observations herein above, present suit is hereby decreed CS No.1764/17 Rishi Bhatia v. Zinga Travels Services Pvt. Ltd. Page 19 of 20 in favour of plaintiff against defendants for a sum of Rs.1,64,003/- with costs of the suit. The plaintiff is also entitled to interest at the rate of 7% per annum (simple) from the date of filing of the present suit till actual realization of the decretal amount.
25. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
26. File be consigned to Record Room.
Digitally signed by DIVYA DIVYA GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2025.06.09 15:38:19 (This order contains 05 pages and +0530 each page has been signed by me) ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (Divya Gupta) Today i.e. 09.06.2025 Civil Judge-08 (Central) Tis Hazari Courts/Delhi CS No.1764/17 Rishi Bhatia v. Zinga Travels Services Pvt. Ltd. Page 20 of 20