Delhi District Court
Gauri Bhatia vs Ruchi Rastogi on 23 December, 2023
IN THE COURT OF MS. CHARU ASIWAL,
CIVIL JUDGE-03, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CS SCJ No. 1792/18
In the matter of:-
GAURI BHATIA
D/o Sh. Rakesh Bhatia
R/o B-56, Manas Apartments,
Mayur Vihar, Phase - I,
Delhi - 110091 ...Plaintiff
Vs.
RUCHI RASTOGI
Having her office at:
C - 517, Defence Colony,
New Delhi - 110024 ...Defendants
Date of institution of Suit : 10.12.2018
Date on which Judgment was reserved : Not Reserved
Date of pronouncement of the Judgment : 23.12.2023
JUDGMENT
1. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit against the defendants seeking recovery of amount of Rs. 1,83,960/- alongwith pendent-lite and future interest @ 18% and cost.
2. Brief facts of the present case as stated in the plaint are that the plaintiff is a content writer and is engaged in business of writing commercial and personalised content for branding and gifting purposes under the business name 'The Unveiled Sagas'. Defendant is stated to be a famous CS SCJ 1792/18 GAURI BHATIA Vs. RUCHI RASTOGI PAGE NO. 1 OF 24 professional Tarot Card reader and teacher with a experience of more than 12 years.
3. It is asserted by the plaintiff that in the month of July, 2018, the plaintiff and the defendant got in contact with each other for the purpose of writing the content of defendant's book pertaining to reading and interpretation of the Tarot Card deck. After negotiations and agreement dated 13.07.2018 was entered between the parties for the project of writing the content of a book titled "Tarot Shaashtra", which was to be written by the plaintiff as a ghostwriter for the defendant. As per agreement dated 13.07.2018, defendant had agreed to pay a consolidated sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- towards the fee for ghostwriting the book within a word count of 30,000 and in case the book exceeds the agreed upon word count, additional words were chargeable at Rs. 5/- per word. In terms of the agreement, defendant paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- by way of cheque bearing no. 000041 dated 14.06.2018 and further an amount of Rs. 30,000/- was paid in cash on 14.07.2018 on completion of research and interview. Meaning thereby, a total amount of Rs. 60,000/- was paid to the plaintiff before the delivery of the book. It is further asserted by the plaintiff that the remaining amount of Rs. 65,000/- was to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff subsequent to the delivery of final copy of the book. Thereafter, on 24.07.2018, defendant issued a cheque bearing no. 000020 dated 31.07.2018 for a sum of Rs. 65,000/- towards the outstanding amount, however, vide email dated 02.08.2018, defendant conveyed CS SCJ 1792/18 GAURI BHATIA Vs. RUCHI RASTOGI PAGE NO. 2 OF 24 the plaintiff that she had stopped payment of the said cheque on false and frivolous grounds concocted by the defendant. Plaintiff further asserted that in the last week of July, 2018, plaintiff delivered the hard copy of first draft of the book to the defendant and the defendant was impressed and satisfied with the work done by the plaintiff and told the plaintiff that she would revert back with her edits, notes and suggestions in few days to be incorporated in the next draft of the book. Further, defendant also issued a permission letter dated 25.07.2018 to the plaintiff thereby permitting to extend the book beyond 30,000 words. Plaintiff further asserted that as per the agreement, plaintiff was to complete the book on or before 31.07.2018, however, the said deadline was rendered infructuous and meaningless by the defendant since she was continuously sending her requests for further edits to be made in the draft of the book beyond 31.07.2018. Thereafter, on 03.08.2018, defendant gave her handwritten edits, notes and suggestions to the plaintiff to be incorporated by her. After incorporating all the edits in the draft of the book, plaintiff sent the draft to the defendant vide email dated 20.08.2018.
4. Plaintiff further asserted that the total word count of the draft of the book was calculated to be 53,792 words and since there was 23,792 additional words which were chargeable @ Rs. 5/- per word, therefore, the additional outstanding amount was calculated to be Rs. 1,18,960/-. Thereafter, plaintiff tried to contact the defendant over CS SCJ 1792/18 GAURI BHATIA Vs. RUCHI RASTOGI PAGE NO. 3 OF 24 several emails, text messages, calls and even personal meetings, however, despite repeated requests defendant with wrong motives instead chose to repeatedly ignore her phone calls, emails and text messages and even declined a personal meeting with the plaintiff. Thereafter, plaintiff delivered draft of the book as per the requirement and satisfaction of the defendant, however, defendant tried to escape her legal liability to pay the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,83,960/- for the work done by the plaintiff vide email dated 30.09.2018. Further, plaintiff asserted that it had come to knowledge of the plaintiff that the defendant despite falsely alleging that the draft of the book was not written as per her satisfaction and was already in contact with the publishing house namely 'Notion Press' for the publication of the book based on the draft of the book which had ghostwritten by the plaintiff for the defendant.
5. Thereafter, compelled by the behaviour of the defendant a legal notice dated 13.10.2018 was also served upon the defendant to pay of the outstanding amount of Rs. 1,83,960/-. However, the notice remained unreplied. Hence, the present suit has been filed for recovery of an amount of Rs. 1,83,960/- alongwith pendent-lite and future interest @ 18% per annum and cost.
WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANT
6. It is contended by the defendant that plaintiff had breached the terms of contract as she was supposed to hand over first draft of the book by 31.07.2018, however, the draft handed CS SCJ 1792/18 GAURI BHATIA Vs. RUCHI RASTOGI PAGE NO. 4 OF 24 over by the plaintiff was insufficient as it did not incorporate the agreed content in the draft. To elaborate the same defendant has relied on clause B & C of the agreement dated 13.07.2018. It is contended that as per the agreed terms between the parties the plaintiff was required to incorporate reference interpretation and case studies of all cards of deck. Further, it was also agreed between the parties that there shall be 133 topics in the book, however, the first draft did not even contain half of the topics as only 57 were covered. It is only when the first draft was found to be insufficient that the banker of the defendant was given instruction of "stop payment" of cheque no. 000020 dated 31.07.2018 for a sum of Rs. 65,000/- and the same was also informed to the plaintiff vide email dated 02.08.2018. Through the said email plaintiff was also notified of the breach of contract and dissatisfaction of the defendant towards the first draft. Thereafter, to meet the deadlines with the publisher defendant also arranged meetings with the plaintiff on 03.08.2018, wherein it was mutually agreed between the parties that the first draft shall be re-written, which was to be delivered to the defendant by 20.08.2018. It is further contended that upon an initial perusal of Chapter 11(named Justice), the chapter was found to be satisfactory, however, after further review the first re-written draft was also found to be incomplete and not in consonance with the directions of the defendant. It is also averred that it is apparent from email dated 27.07.2018, written by Mr. Anuj(Associate of the plaintiff) that essential elements and topics for the book are missing, CS SCJ 1792/18 GAURI BHATIA Vs. RUCHI RASTOGI PAGE NO. 5 OF 24 wherein in addition to the elements highlighted by Mr. Anuj, two sample books were also handed over to the plaintiff as a reference, however, plaintiff failed to comprise the said material into the first draft. It is strongly contended by the defendant that both drafts dated 31.07.2018 and 20.08.2018 is grossly deficit of the agreed upon content by the parties. It is averred that the drafts were not only incomplete but were also handed over to the defendant after a long delay. To highlight the ill intention of the plaintiff, defendant has also averred that even in the past plaintiff had tried to manipulate the defendant, wherein without the consent of the defendant, plaintiff had inserted a condition of 10% royalty in the defendant's book and had also slyly amended the payment structure, however, upon the interjection of the defendant, the said terms stood rectified.
7. It is also averred that due to poor writing of the plaintiff, defendant had to engage an alternate writer as because of the delay caused by the plaintiff, defendant had to face severe time constraints and consequently, had to incur an additional cost in getting the book written. It is with these assertions of incomplete and poorly written book that the present suit has been defended.
8. Thereafter, replication was also filed by the plaintiff wherein each and every averments of the defendant has been denied by the plaintiff. Therefore, vide order dated 17.12.2021, following issues were framed:
CS SCJ 1792/18 GAURI BHATIA Vs. RUCHI RASTOGI PAGE NO. 6 OF 24 (1) Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 1,83,960/- from the defendant?OPP.
(2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest, if so. At what rate and for what period?OPP.
(3) Relief.
PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE:-
9. The plaintiff, deposed as PW1, vide affidavit of evidence, exhibited as Ex.PW1/A and reiterated the contents of the plaint.
10. For the sake of brevity and to avoid repetition, the contents of the affidavit and documents are not being reproduced.
The plaintiff relied upon the following documents: -
Sl. No. Documents Exhibits Page No.
1. Copy of agreement dated 13.07.2018 Ex.PW1/1 20-24 of
plaint
2. Copy of permission letter dated Ex.PW1/2 25 of plaint
25.07.2018
3. A screenshot of the whatsap Ex.PW1/3 68 of
conversation dated 20.06.2018 additional
between the deponent and defendant documents
wherein the deponent is asking for
some inputs regarding the draft of the book and defendant could not provide the same as she was unavailable for the same
4. Copy of audio recorded dated Ex.PW1/4 1-9 of 21.06.2018 (CD plus transcript) additional entitled as 'Audio 1' alongwith its true document typed transcript showcasing that the defendant was agreeing with the content and structure of the book being developed by the deponent and her partner(Mr. Anuj Arora) and was happily letting them move forward with the draft of the book after being satisfied with their work
5. Copy of the chain emails dated Ex.PW1/5(C 29-30 of 16.07.2018, 17.07.2018, 18.07.2018, olly.) additional CS SCJ 1792/18 GAURI BHATIA Vs. RUCHI RASTOGI PAGE NO. 7 OF 24 19.07.2018 and 21.07.2018 exchanged documents between the deponent and defendant wherein the deponent is regularly following up and asking the defendant with respect to corrections, writing stories and sending materials to the deponent
6. Copy of audio recording dated Ex.PW1/6 & 10 and 11 of 24.07.2018 at 21:16 entitled as 'Audio Ex.PW1/7 additional 2' alongwith its true tuped transcript documents and 'Audio 3' at 21:16 alongwith its respectively true typed transcript showcasing that the defendant was satisfied with 90% of cups which constituted about 25% of the book and taht the defendant was happy with the book and the process which at that time was around 70% of the whole draft
7. Copy of chain emails dated Ex.PW1/8(C 33-34 of 21.07.2018 and 24.07.2018 exchanged olly.) additional between the deponent, her partner documents (Mr. Anuj Arora) and the defendant wherein he is apprising the defendant about the status of the book alongwith its delivery by 31.07.20218 subject to the defendant's revert on the required changes in the draft at the earliest, and that the defendant clearly showcasing her inability to stick to the timelines of the agreement due to her commitment on work and home front
8. Copy of the chain emails dated Ex.PW1/9(C 32 of 23.07.2018 exchanged between the olly.) additional deponent and defendant wherein the documents deponent is sending case studies and numerology for Torat to the defendant to be perused by her on an urgent basis
9. Screenshot of the whatsapp Ex.PW1/10 69 of conversation dated 24.06.2018 additional between the deponent admitted that documents she could not provide inputes on her part due to a lot of 'drama' in her house
10. Screenshot of whatsapp conversation Ex.PW1/11 70 of dated 27.06.2018 between the additional deponent and defendant wherein the documents CS SCJ 1792/18 GAURI BHATIA Vs. RUCHI RASTOGI PAGE NO. 8 OF 24 defendant has admitted that the numerology part for the draft of the book in fine
11. Screenshot of whatsapp converstaion Ex.PW1/12 70 of dated 14.07.2018 between the additional deponent and the defendant wherein documents the deponent is requesting the defendant for a meeting so that the final draft of the book can finalized as per the deadline
12. Screenshot of whatsapp conversation Ex.PW1/13 72 to 74 of dated 17.07.2018, 18.07.2018, additional 23.07.2018 wherein the deponent is documents constantly requesting and reminding the defendant to keep sending her stories, content and edits so that an average could be maintained, and the work could be completed on time
13. Copy of the chain emails dated Ex.PW1/14( 35 to 36 of 24.07.2018 exchanged between the Colly.) additional deponent's partner (Mr. Anuj Arora) documents and Defendant wherein (colly) Mr. Anuj Arora sent 10-word document containing the content for the suit of cups (1-10) to the Defendant and the Defendant admitting that she liked the content and the tone of cards in the said files
14. screenshot of the WhatsApp Ex.PW1/15( 75 to 78 of conversations dated 24.07.2018, Colly.) additional 25.07.2018, 27.07.2018 and documents 28.07.2018 of group entitled 'Content writers' consisting of Deponent, her partner (Mr. Anuj Arora) and the Defendant wherein the Deponent and Mr. Anuj Arora is explaining the work done by them, requesting the Defendant to provide them with permissions for viewing certain images, requesting the Defendant to keep sending certain edits with regard to the book, and the Defendant stating that she is busy with work and too tired to send her edits and that she will send her edits the next day
15. copy of audio recording dated Ex.PW1/16 12-14 of 28.07.2018 entitled as 'Audio 4' from additional CS SCJ 1792/18 GAURI BHATIA Vs. RUCHI RASTOGI PAGE NO. 9 OF 24 15:00 to 17:30 along with its true documents typed transcript showcasing that it was the Defendant who was taking her own sweet time to peruse the content sent by the Deponent and that the Deponent and her partner (Mr. Anuj Arora) were proceedings only after the approvals from the Defendant and that the Defendant jumped to negative conclusions regarding the content even without perusing the entire content sent by the Deponent but subsequently in the end admitted that she was satisfied with the flow of content
16. Copy of audio recording dated Ex.PW1/17 15 of 29.07.2018 entitled as 'Audio 5' from additional 21:00 to 21:40 along with its true documents typed transcript showcasing that the Defendant had not done any research on the topics and had no clue about what content she wanted to include in the book and that she had not conceptualized the cards as claimed by her in the initial meeting with the Deponent and her partner (Mr. Anuj Arora) and that it was the Deponent and her partner (Mr. Anuj Arora) who actually had to research and write stories, which was not a part of the agreement
17. screenshot of the WhatsApp Ex.PW1/18( 79-81 of conversations dated 30.07.2018 and Colly.) additional 31.07.2018 of group entitled 'Content documents writers' consisting of Deponent, her partner (Mr. Anuj Arora) and the Defendant wherein the Mr. Anuj Arora made clear to the Defendant that the work on the book has been done as per her directions and the writing style approved by her earlier and that she should provide exact and specific instructions in case of any change
18. Copy of the screenshot of whatsapp Ex.PW1/19 81-86 of conversation dated 01.08.2018 of additional group 'Content writers' consisting of documents Deponent, her partner (Mr. Anuj Arora) and Defendant wherein Mr. CS SCJ 1792/18 GAURI BHATIA Vs. RUCHI RASTOGI PAGE NO. 10 OF 24 Anuj Arora clearly told the Defendant that new content being provided by her will take time and would be extra chargeable and that the Defendant herself had told them (on audio clip) that she was in no hurry to receive the book
19. copy of the said audio message dated Ex.PW1/20 16 of 31.07.2018 at 12:35 AM entitled additional "Audio 6" along with its true typed documents transcript wherein the Defendant informed the Deponent's partner (Mr. Anuj Arora) that she would send additional details, content and stories
20. copy of the audio message dated Ex.PW1/21 17 and 18 of 31.07.2018 at 12:44 AM entitled and additional "Audio 7" along with and its true Ex.PW1/22 documents typed transcript and audio message respectively dated 31.07.2018 at 1:27 AM entitled 'Audio 8' along with its true typed transcript y wherein the Defendant clearly admitted to the Deponent's partner (Mr. Anuj Arora) that there was no pressure for the timelines from her side and the Deponent and her partner can "just relax", and she does not have a deadline (for the book)
21. copy of the WhatsApp audio message Ex.PW1/23 19 of dated 31.07.2018 at 1:38 AM entitled additional 'Audio 9' along with its true typed documents transcript wherein the Defendant has admitted that she has not even seen all the content of the book provided by the Deponent, and her fault of not providing the complete material / content for the book to the Deponent
22. copy of the telephonic conversation Ex.PW1/24 22-27 of dated 27.09.2018 at entitled 'Audio 12' additional along with its true typed transcript documents between the Deponent's partner (Mr. Anuj Arora) and the Defendant wherein the Defendant admitted that the Defendant has not gone through the whole content of the book sent by the Deponent due to lack of time on her end, that she herself is confused about the content she wants to be included in her book and that she has CS SCJ 1792/18 GAURI BHATIA Vs. RUCHI RASTOGI PAGE NO. 11 OF 24 not been communicative with the Deponent and her partner (Mr. Anuj Arora) about the required edits in the book
23. copy of eight (8) emails dated Ex.PW1/25( 37-44 of 03.08.2018 sent by the Defendant to Colly.) additional the Deponent wherein the Defendant documents has sent audio clips (colly) containing detailed instructions with respect to the content of the book even after the expiry of the alleged deadline
24. copy of the email dated 04.08.2018 Ex.PW1/26( 45-57 of along with a copy of its attachments colly.) additional sent by the Defendant to the Deponent documents containing the handwritten notes by the Defendant
25. copy of the email dated 04.08.2018 Ex.PW1/27 58 of sent by the Defendant to the Deponent additional containing additional content for the documents book with an attachment entitled 'zodiac correspondence with major and court cards'
26. copy of the email dated 05.08.2018 Ex.PW1/28 59 of sent by the Defendant to the Deponent additional containing a table regarding sun signs documents corelated with tarot cards
27. copy of the chain email dated Ex.PW1/29( 60-61 of 05.08.2018, 06.08.2018, 07.08.2018: Colly.) additional and 20.08.2018 exchanged between documents the Deponent and the Defendant wherein Defendant admitted that she provided content for the book beyond 31.07.2018, and the Deponent informed the Defendant that the final draft of the book would be sent by 20.08.2018
28. copy of the email dated 20.08.2018 Ex.PW1/30( 62-63 of wherein the Deponent sent the draft of Colly.) additional the book to the Defendant via pCloud documents Transfer attachment entitled "Tarot Shaastra.docx" and a copy of the email dated 21.08.2018 confirmed downloading of the draft of the book by the Defendant
29. Сору of the WhatsApp message dated Ex.PW1/31 87-88 of 21.08.2018 of group additional 'Content writers' comprising of documents CS SCJ 1792/18 GAURI BHATIA Vs. RUCHI RASTOGI PAGE NO. 12 OF 24 Deponent, her partner (Mr. Anuj Arora) and the Defendant wherein the Defendant is proud of the work done by the Deponent and her partner) and has acknowledged the good job done by them
30. copy of email dated 27.08.2018 at Ex.PW1/32 64 of 03:11 PM sent by the Defendant to the additional Deponent containing the links to few documents websites and asking the Deponent to write about various techniques used in India for future prediction (while referring to these links)
31. copy of the WhatsApp message dated Ex.PW1/33 88 of 27.08.2018 of group additional 'Content writers' comprising of documents Deponent, her partner (Mr. Anuj Arora) and the Defendant wherein upon enquiry from Mr. Anuj Arora on any update on the final draft of the book sent to her, the Defendant told them that she has been very busy with other time bound things' and would get back to them soon
32. copy of the email dated 25.09.2018 Ex.PW1/34 65 of sent by Deponent to the Defendant additional asking for updates on edits in the book documents
33. copy of the WhatsApp messages dated Ex.PW1/35 89-90 of 31.08.2018, 20.09.2018, 26.09.2018, additional 01.10.2018 and 02.10.2018 of group documents 'Content writers' comprising of Deponent, her partner (Mr. Anuj Arora) and the Defendant showcasing that despite numerous messages by the Deponent and her partner on the status of the draft of the book sent to her, the Defendant remained unresponsive to those messages and avoided the Deponent on some pretexts of the other
34. copy of the email dated 21.07.2018 Ex.PW1/36 31 of sent by the Deponent to the Defendant additional containing the link of the Google documents Sheet contained the final list of topics that were supposed to be incorporated in the draft
35. copy of the Google Sheet shared Ex.PW1/37( 91-94 of CS SCJ 1792/18 GAURI BHATIA Vs. RUCHI RASTOGI PAGE NO. 13 OF 24 between the Deponent and the Colly.) additional Defendant containing elements / documents chapters to be included in the draft of the book alongwith screenshot of its version history
36. copy of the Google Sheet containing Ex.PW1/38( 95-98 of zodiac signs and correspondence from Colly.) additional the draft book created by the documents Deponent and shared with the Defendant
37. copy of the said audio entitled 'Audio Ex.PW1/39 20-21 of 10' and 'Audio 11' dated 03.08.2018 and additional wherein the Defendant is discussing Ex.PW1/40 documents the mantras as remedies and to respectively enhance the aura
38. copy of chain emails dated Ex.PW1/41( 28 of 16.06.2018, 17.06.2018 and Colly.) additional 18.06.2018 exchanged between the documents Deponent and the Defendant regarding the Defendant's bio to be written by the Deponent for the magazine / book article which was stated as 'perfect' by the Defendant
39. screenshot of the WhatsApp Ex.PW1/42 67 of conversation dated 17.06.2018 additional between the Deponent and Defendant documents wherein the Defendant after sending a few additions has acknowledged that rest of the draft is 'perfect'
40. copy of the bio / article written by the Ex.PW1/43( 99-106 of E Deponent for the Defendant used by Colly.) additional her for her self-promotion in a documents prestigious magazine / book namely Inspiring Entrepreneurs: A Journey from "CAN I" to "I CAN" along with the photos of the launch event dated 15.09.2018
41. copy of the chain emails dated Ex.PW1/44( 66 of 30.09.2018 and 02.10.2018 whereby Colly.) additional the Defendant terminated the documents agreement in an arbitrary manner on false and frivolous grounds and even refused to meet the Deponent to sort out any issues
42. Legal Notice dated 13.10.2018 Ex.PW1/45 77-84 of plaint CS SCJ 1792/18 GAURI BHATIA Vs. RUCHI RASTOGI PAGE NO. 14 OF 24
43. Copy of the edits, notes and Now 26 to 74 of suggestions sent by the defendant to exhibited as plaint the deponent on 27.07.2018 to be Ex.PW1/46 incorporated in the next draft of the book.
44. Certificate under Sec. 65 B of Indian Now Evidence Act exhibited as Ex.PW1/47
11. PW-1 was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the defendant.
12. Thereafter, PW-2 examined in chief by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A and was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the defendant and PE closed on 21.12.2022.
DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE:-
13. DW-1 examined in chief by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A and was duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and DE closed on 15.09.2023. FINAL ARGUMENTS:-
14. Thereafter, final arguments were heard at length from both the sides.
ISSUE-WISE FINDINGS:-
Issue no. 1: Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 1,83,960/- from the defendant?OPP.
& Issue no. 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest, if so. At what rate and for what period?OPP.
15. Both the issues are interconnected and therefore, they are taken up together.
CS SCJ 1792/18 GAURI BHATIA Vs. RUCHI RASTOGI PAGE NO. 15 OF 24
16. The present suit emanates from agreement dated 13.07.2018(Ex.PW1/1), through which both the parties agreed that the plaintiff shall write a book on behalf of the defendant with the subject of Interpretation of Tarot Card Deck, wherein the ideas and content would be of the defendant and plaintiff would merely put those ideas and content on paper and therefore, shall be a "ghostwriter" for the defendant and that the book shall be called "Tarot Shaastra". It was the basic terms of agreement that the complete book, subject to the satisfaction of the defendant, shall be delivered to her by 31.07.2018 and in case of any suggested edits, the same shall be incorporated in the book within 24 hours of the delivery of book. The consideration for the contract shall be consolidated sum of Rs. 1,25,000/-, however, a rider was imposed that the word count shall not exceed 30,000 in total, however, if the word count exceeded the said number the consideration shall increase by Rs. 5/- per word, however, such increase would be subject to the prior approval of the defendant. Further, at the time of entering into the agreement, Rs. 30,000/- was paid upfront to the plaintiff and further Rs. 30,000/- was also paid on completion of research and interviews. Meaning thereby, an amount of Rs. 60,000/- stood paid by the defendant to the plaintiff before completion of the book. The bone of contention between the parties is w.r.t. the non-payment of rest of the consideration, wherein plaintiff also claims that the word count exceeded the limit of 30,000 words. It is version of the plaintiff that she had fulfilled every term of the agreement with the defendant, CS SCJ 1792/18 GAURI BHATIA Vs. RUCHI RASTOGI PAGE NO. 16 OF 24 wherein considering the content of the book, the word count of 30,000 was also increased to 53,792 words with the prior approval of the defendant and therefore, in addition to the previous unpaid amount of Rs. 65,000/- an additional amount of Rs. 1,18,960/-(@Rs. 5/- per word) is payable by the defendant to the plaintiff and therefore, plaintiff is entitled to receive a consolidated sum of Rs. 1,83,960/- from the defendant in pursuance of agreement(Ex.PW1/1). The relief amount has been arrived at in the following manner:-
Rs. 65,000/-(Unpaid out of Rs. 1,25,000/-) + Rs. 1,18,960/- (On word count beyond 30,000 @ Rs. 5/- per word) = Rs. 1,83,960/-.
17. At the outset, it is pertinent to note that all the documents filed by the plaintiff have already been admitted by the defendant during admission and denial of documents, therefore, there is no dispute w.r.t. the documentary evidence adduced by the plaintiff. The only defence taken by the defendant is regarding breach of contract, wherein she claims that the drafts of book handed over by the plaintiff to the defendant were not only in breach of the agreed timeline but was also not in consonance with the directions of the defendant w.r.t. the quality of work done by the plaintiff and therefore, the contract stood breached and accordingly, plaintiff is not entitled to claim any consideration from the defendant. Hence, to summaries neither the execution of agreement(Ex.PW1/1) nor the CS SCJ 1792/18 GAURI BHATIA Vs. RUCHI RASTOGI PAGE NO. 17 OF 24 ghostwriting of the book is under dispute. Therefore, the only point for consideration is if the writing of the plaintiff was as per the agreed terms between the parties and to the satisfaction of the defendant.
18. To discharge her onus, plaintiff has relied on a number of communications in the form of messages, emails and voice notes between the parties so as to establish that the work of the plaintiff was not only of quality but was also to the satisfaction of the defendant and any lacunas in the writing or of the content of the book was because of the lack of interest and contribution on the part of the defendant.
Further, plaintiff has also relied on Ex.PW1/2, which is permission letter dated 25.07.2018, as per which defendant had authorised the plaintiff to extend the word count of the book beyond 30,000 words.
19. Upon perusal of the evidence of the defendant, it is found that she has taken a stand that plaintiff has breached the timeline as agreed between the parties, which had caused considerable delay in publication of a work. To assess the merits of said assertion, a perusal of agreement dated 13.07.2018(Ex.PW1/1) was done, as per which the complete book was to be handed over to the defendant by 31.07.2018. It is an admitted position that the first draft of the book was handed over to the defendant, wherein it is asserted by the plaintiff that even before the first draft was handed over repeated communications were made to the defendant w.r.t. her suggestions or edits on the quality of CS SCJ 1792/18 GAURI BHATIA Vs. RUCHI RASTOGI PAGE NO. 18 OF 24 work and the content incorporated therein. To establish this assertion, plaintiff has relied on Ex.PW1/5 r/w Ex.PW1/47(certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act), which are the email conversations between the parties. Upon perusal of all the email communication(dated 16.07.2018, 17.07.2018, 18.07.2018 and 21.07.2018), it is found that plaintiff has been seeking continuous assistance from the defendant w.r.t. her take on the progress of work and has been continuously sending her drafts. Further, plaintiff has also relied on Ex.PW1/6 and Ex.PW1/7 r/w Ex.PW1/47(certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act), which are audio recordings/transcript, wherein defendant has also shown her appreciation towards the work done by the plaintiff so far. Further, another chain of email and whatsapp messages Ex.PW1/8 and Ex.PW1/15 r/w Ex.PW1/47(certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act), which are emails dated 21.07.2018, 24.07.2018 and whatsapp messages dated 24.07.2018, as per which the associate of the plaintiff namely Sh. Anuj has emailed the defendant assuring that the first draft shall be sent to the defendant by 25.07.2018, wherein he had also requested that the suggested changes in the book be shared with them on the same day so that the final draft can be sent to the defendant by 26.07.2018. However, on the very same date i.e. 21.07.2018, defendant has through an email apprised the plaintiff and his associate that due to urgent domestic commitments, she will not be able to stick to the timelines. Further, even through whatsapp dated 25.07.2018(Ex.PW1/15), defendant had shown her inability CS SCJ 1792/18 GAURI BHATIA Vs. RUCHI RASTOGI PAGE NO. 19 OF 24 to assist the plaintiff due to her busy work schedule. Thereafter, another set of emails i.e. Ex.PW1/9 r/w Ex.PW1/47(certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act) also shows that plaintiff has sent case studies and other relevant content to the defendant for the purpose of a scrutiny and suggested edits.
20. Upon a seamless perusal of the above email exchange between the parties what come to fore is that plaintiff and her associate Sh. Anuj had been sending regular updates to the defendant w.r.t. the progress of her book, wherein also pressing upon the requirement to meet the fixed timelines and seeking inputs of the defendant, however, it was only because of time crunch at the end of the defendant that the timelines were not being met. Therefore, the contention of the defendant that the timelines were not met by the plaintiff and therefore, she is in breach of contract is found to be meritless.
21. Further, even Ex.PW1/18, which is whatsapp conversation dated 30.07.2018 between the parties also go on to show that plaintiff had executed her part of the agreement as per the instructions of the defendant and it is only because specific instruction were lacking from the defendant that has led to supposed dissatisfaction on the part of the defendant. In the said whatsapp conversation it has also been put across to the defendant that the draft did not reach the defendant on time because she failed to provide her inputs in time and also because of the reason that she CS SCJ 1792/18 GAURI BHATIA Vs. RUCHI RASTOGI PAGE NO. 20 OF 24 herself was not in a hurry to receive the drafts. Further in Ex.PW1/21 and Ex.PW1/22(audio clips dated 31.07.2018), wherein defendant herself has apprised the plaintiff that there would be no pressure from her side to stick to any timeline and that she will perform her part of contract at her own pace. Further, plaintiff has also laid emphasis on number of email conversations Ex.PW1/25, Ex.PW1/26, Ex.PW1/27, Ex.PW1/28 and Ex.PW1/29 r/w Ex.PW1/47(certificate u/s 65B of Indian Evidence Act), wherein plaintiff has again sent multiple audio clips to the defendant with detailed instruction of the content of the book. Further, in said emails, both the parties have also arrived at a new deadline for the final draft of the book, which was 20.08.2018, accordingly, in email exchange Ex.PW1/30 dated 20.08.2018, final draft of the book has been sent by the plaintiff to the defendant. Therefore, plaintiff has established that the new agreed upon timeline was duly met by the plaintiff. Hence, these conversations itself conclusively go on to show that the breach of timeline, if any, was either contributory or was condoned by the defendant.
22. The second limb of assertion, put forward by the defendant is w.r.t. the quality of work put forth by the plaintiff. To negate such assertion, plaintiff has placed reliance on whatsapp conversation dated 21.08.2018 Ex.PW1/31, which goes on to show that defendant has admired the effort of the plaintiff and has shown her appreciation towards the quality of the book, however, even in the said CS SCJ 1792/18 GAURI BHATIA Vs. RUCHI RASTOGI PAGE NO. 21 OF 24 conversation, defendant has conveyed that she will keep on sending her edits as she keep on readings the chapters of the book one by one. Even thereafter, on 25.08.2018(Ex.PW1/34) and on 27.08.2018(Ex.PW1/33), plaintiff has sought for the comments of the defendant w.r.t. the quality of the chapters in the book, however, defendant has shown her inability to provide her updates as she was busy in other important matters. Thereafter, plaintiff had sent a number of whatsapp messages dated 20.09.2018, 26.09.2018 and 01.10.2018, which is Ex.PW1/35 seeking response of the defendant on the final draft of the book, however, all throughout defendant remained unresponsive and thereafter, straightaway on 30.09.2018 terminated the contract between the parties.
23. On a cohesive reading of the entire evidence, it is established beyond doubt that the breach of timeline if at all was because of delay on the part of the defendant by not providing regular updates and material to the plaintiff. Further, even if it assumed that the defendant had provided sufficient material or edits to the plaintiff, it now stands proved that the breach of timeline was condoned by the defendant. Furthermore, it also stands proved that the limit of 30,000 words was only exceeded after the permission of the defendant as it was found to be a requirement for the successful completion of the book. Further, the assertion of the defendant that the book writing provided by the plaintiff was not strictly upto her satisfaction also remain unproved as the continuous conversation between the CS SCJ 1792/18 GAURI BHATIA Vs. RUCHI RASTOGI PAGE NO. 22 OF 24 parties indicate otherwise. It can be clearly seen time and again, it was the plaintiff and her associate, who had been seeking constant updates, material and edits from the defendant, however, due to her other professional/personal commitments the response from her side kept on getting delayed. Furthermore, it is a matter of record that the book in question is a subject, which was largely unknown to the plaintiff and she and her associates did not possess sufficient acumen to understand the intricacies of the subject and therefore, they were bound to rely on the expertise of the defendant on the subject, however, defendant not only pushed the timelines but also took large breaks in providing the sufficient knowhow to the plaintiff. Therefore, the contention of the defendant that the quality of work provided by the plaintiff was sub-par is found to be far-fetched. Furthermore, the record itself speaks that defendant admired the effort put by the plaintiff and her associate and therefore, the sudden termination of contract without providing any reasons or edits on the book appears to be unreasonable. Therefore, upon perusal of evidence, it is not found that the content of the book was not upto the instructions of the defendant as the instruction itself are found to be incomplete and inapt. With these observations, plaintiff has successfully established that she is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 1,83,960/- from the defendant towards the work done by her on the book of the defendant.
24. Further, since plaintiff is found entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 1,83,960/- there is merits in the prayer of CS SCJ 1792/18 GAURI BHATIA Vs. RUCHI RASTOGI PAGE NO. 23 OF 24 interest, wherein plaintiff has sought pendent-lite and future interest @ 18% per annum, however, the prayer for interest @ 18% is found to be excessive. Therefore, it is held that the just claim of the plaintiff would be served if an interest @ 8% is awarded to the plaintiff. Accordingly, plaintiff is found entitled to recover interest @ 8% per annum from the institution of the suit till the recovery of principal amount.
25. Accordingly, issues no. 1 & 2 are decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
RELIEF
26. In view of the above observations, plaintiff is found entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 1,83,960/- alongwith pendent-lite and future interest @ 8% from the filing of the suit till the recovery of the principal amount against the defendants.
27. Costs of the suit is also awarded in favour of the plaintiff.
28. Decree sheet be prepared.
29. File be consigned to Record-Room after due compliance.
Pronounced in the open (Charu Asiwal) Court on 23.12.2023 Civil Judge-03, South East, Saket Court, New Delhi.
23.12.2023 CS SCJ 1792/18 GAURI BHATIA Vs. RUCHI RASTOGI PAGE NO. 24 OF 24