Delhi District Court
Sh. T.R. Alagh vs Sun Nirman Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd on 9 October, 2015
IN THE COURT OF SH BALWANT RAI BANSAL,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE02, SOUTH EAST,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Civil Suit No. 62/14
Sh. T.R. Alagh
R/o 49A, Single Storey,
ABBlock, Ramesh Nagar,
New Delhi 110015
..........Plaintiff.
VS
Sun Nirman Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
Through its Director / Proprietor,
D15, Basement, Okhla PhaseI
New Delhi110020
..........Defendant.
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.9,94,405/
ALONGWITH INTEREST @ 24% PER ANNUM
(a) Date of institution : 02.07.2014
(b) Date when judgment reserved : 01.10.2015
(c) Date of Judgment : 09.10.2015
EXPARTE JUDGMENT:
1.Vide this judgment I shall dispose of the present suit filed CS No. 62/14 T.R. Alagh Vs. Sun Nirman Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 1 of 6 by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 9,94,405/ alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of the decretal amount. The plaintiff has also prayed for awarding a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/ in his favour for mental agony, pain and harassment along with cost of the suit.
2. Briefly stated the facts of the present case are that the plaintiff was appointed as a Senior Project Manager by the defendant on 01.01.2008 and he had been promoted as AGM on 01.04.2011 and thereafter he had been again promoted as General Manager and as a General Manager, the present consideration of the plaintiff is Rs. 79,999/ per month plus fuel charges of Rs. 15,000/ per month plus driver salary of Rs. 8500/ per month totaling to Rs. 1,03,499/. The plaintiff had worked in the defendant company since joining to 28.01.2014 and he never gave any chance of any kind of complaint to the defendant. It is stated that the salary and other dues of the plaintiff are due against the defendant since January, 2013 and an amount of Rs. 9,94,405/ is due after deduction of salary already paid Rs. 3,43,500/. The plaintiff demanded his salary many times but no action has been taken by the concerned department of the defendant company. It is stated that defendant has withheld the salary of the plaintiff to the tune of Rs. 9,94,405/ which the defendant company CS No. 62/14 T.R. Alagh Vs. Sun Nirman Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 2 of 6 has not paid despite several reminders and service of legal notice. Hence, the present suit.
3. It is pertinent here to mention that initially the plaintiff has also impleaded Sh. Vijay Verma, who was the Director of the defendant company as defendant no. 1 in the present suit and summons of the suit were directed to be issued to the defendants vide order dated 02.07.2014. Upon the service of summons of the suit, the defendant no. 1 Sh. Vijay Verma appeared and moved an application u/o 1 rule 10 (2) CPC seeking deletion of his name from the array of the parties on the ground that there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and him. The said application was allowed vide order dated 02.06.2015 and name of defendant no. 1 was deleted from the array of the parties.
4. The defendant company Sun Nirman Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. which was initially impleaded as defendant no. 2 was served with the summons of suit by way of publication in the newspaper "The Statesman" on 31.01.2015, but despite service the defendant company failed to appear in the court and accordingly was proceeded exparte vide order dated 04.09.2015.
5. Thereafter, in order to prove his case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and filed his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW1/A, wherein he reiterated the averments made in the CS No. 62/14 T.R. Alagh Vs. Sun Nirman Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 3 of 6 plaint. During his deposition, he has also placed on record the letter dated 01.04.2011 as Ex. PW1/1, appointment letter dated 01.01.2008 as Ex. PW1/2, letter dated 29.01.2013 as Ex. PW1/3, copy of gmail dated 01.05.2014 as Ex. Pw1/4, salary slip as Ex. Pw1/5, copy of details of salary structure as Ex. PW1/6, registered slip as Ex. PW1/7 and registered AD as Ex. PW1/8.
6. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record carefully.
7. The plaintiff in order to prove his case has examined himself as PW1 and deposed in his evidence as per the averments made in the plaint and has also placed on record the relevant documents. The testimony of PW1 has gone unrebutted and unchallenged as the defendant chose not to contest the case. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW1.
8. From the unrebutted and unchallenged testimony of PW1 and the documents placed on record by him, it stands proved vide appointment letter Ex. PW1/2 that the plaintiff was employed with the defendant company as Sr. Project Manager and he was promoted as Additional General Manager vide letter dated 01.04.2011 Ex. PW1/1 and thereafter as General Manager vide letter dated 29.01.2013 Ex. PW1/3. PW1 has also placed on record the details of his salary structure Ex. PW1/6 which shows that at the post of General CS No. 62/14 T.R. Alagh Vs. Sun Nirman Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 4 of 6 Manager with the defendant company, he was drawing salary of Rs. 79,999/ per month plus fuel charges of Rs. 15,000/ and driver salary of Rs. 8500/ per month. From the unrebutted testimony of PW1, it further stands proved that the defendant has failed to pay the salary due to the plaintiff and the plaintiff vide gmail Ex. PW1/4 asked the defendant to pay the salary due to him along with conveyance expenditure totaling to Rs. 9,94,405/. The plaintiff also sent a legal notice dated 16.05.2014 through registered post Ex. PW1/8 vide receipt Ex. PW1/7 to the defendant company demanding the aforesaid outstanding amount, which was received back with the remarks "refusal". Hence, defendant was deemed to be served with the legal notice. But the defendant failed to respond to the legal notice and also failed to discharge their legal liability to pay the outstanding amount to the plaintiff. Hence, the plaintiff is held entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 9,94,405/ from the defendant.
9. The plaintiff has also claimed pendente lite and future interest @ 24% per annum which seems to be on the higher side and ends of justice would meet if the plaintiff is awarded pendente lite and future interest @ 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount.
10. Though the plaintiff has also claimed Rs. 3,00,000/ towards mental agony, pain and harassment, but there is no evidence to this effect and in the absence of any evidence, this claim of the CS No. 62/14 T.R. Alagh Vs. Sun Nirman Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 5 of 6 plaintiff is without any basis. Hence, this claim of the plaintiff is declined.
11. Accordingly, suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs. 9,94,405/ against the defendant along with pendente lite and future interest @ 9% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization of the decreetal amount. The plaintiff is also entitled to cost of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court (Balwant Rai Bansal) on 9th October, 2015 Addl. District Judge 02 (SouthEast) Saket Courts, New Delhi CS No. 62/14 T.R. Alagh Vs. Sun Nirman Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 6 of 6 CS No. 62/14 T.R. Alagh Vs. Sun Nirman Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.
09.10.2015 At 3.00 PM Present: None.
Vide my separate judgment of even date, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed. Decree sheet be prepared in terms of the judgment.
File be consigned to record room.
(Balwant Rai Bansal) ADJ02/SE/Saket/New Delhi 09.10.2015 CS No. 62/14 T.R. Alagh Vs. Sun Nirman Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 7 of 6