Delhi District Court
M/S Pioneer Plastic Industries vs Indian Farmers Service Institute on 20 September, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH SUNIL KUMAR AGGARWAL: ADDL.
DISTRICT JUDGE (CENTRAL) 10: DELHI
Suit No. 1031/08
M/s Pioneer Plastic Industries.
A135, Okhla Industrial Area,
PhaseII, New Delhi. ....Plaintiff
VERSUS
Indian Farmers Service Institute
PRDA Building,
Court Compound, Ranchi834001
Jharkhand. ...Defendant
Plaint presented on 15.12.2004
J U D G M E N T.
1.Plaintiff, an incorporated company has filed the suit for money recovery through Sh. Rajan Nigam, Commercial Executive stating that it is in the business of manufacturing and trading PVC Compound, Plastic Pipes, Fittings, Sprinkler and Drip Irrigation System and Part thereof. On the request of defendant, a farmer service institution, 35 sets of 63 mm Sprinklers were supplied by the plaintiff against invoice dated 18.05.2002 for Rs. 4,36,800/. The goods were dispatched through the South Delhi Cargo Transporters as per the instructions of the defendant and were duly received by him. No objection has to be quality or quantity of the goods has been received. The defendant was to pay Rs. 2,45,000/ in advance against said purchase and the remaining on receipt of delivery of Sprinklers. Suit No. 1031/2008 Page No.1 of 5 Defendant however only paid a sum of Rs. 2 lakh to the plaintiff by bank draft. The balance amount of Rs. 2,36,800/ have not been paid within 14 days of delivery of goods or even on being reminded through letters dated 20.05.2002, 12.07.2002, 20.01.2003 & legal notice dated 13.05.2003. Only a letter dated 02.08.2002 was received from them. Plaintiff claims entitled to interest at the rate of 24 % per annum on the outstanding amount as per the terms and conditions of invoice. A sum of Rs. 1,41,846/ has thus accrued towards interest till the date of filing of the suit. Therefore, the suit for recovery of Rs. 3,78,646/ with pendentelite and future interest has been filed.
2. Summons for settlement of issues were sent to the defendant in ordinary manner as well as through registered post but they all have returned with remarks that 'the addressees is not found, the institute has closed down and the addressees has left without address.' The suit was dismissed for nonappearance of plaintiff on 24.01.2006. On the application of plaintiff however, it was restored on 16.09.2006. The plaintiff could not give better particulars of the defendant purportedly after making earnest efforts. An application under Order 5 Rule 20 CPC for directing substituting service of defendant, therefore was moved which was allowed on 03.01.2007. The defendant thus was served through proclamation published in Dainik Jagran, Ranchi edition dated 24.07.2007. Copy of the newspaper must have been sent to the defendant by post but they did not come forward to defend the suit. Retrieval of the newspaper from Suit No. 1031/2008 Page No.2 of 5 the office of publisher took long time which delayed the perception of date/period of service of the defendant, therefore the defendant could be proceeded exparte only on 13.05.2010.
3. In exparte evidence plaintiff has examined Sh. Rajan Nigam who has proved resolution of board of Directors of plaintiff in his favour as Ex. PW 1/1, invoice dated 18.05.2002 Ex. PW 1/3, statement of account Ex. PW 1/4, letters sent to the defendant Ex. PW 1/5 to Ex. PW 1/9 and Ex. PW 1/11 and reply dated 02.08.2002 received from the defendant Ex. PW 1/10 besides narrating the facts of the case. The exparte evidence was closed on 23.03.2011.
4. I have heard Sh. M. Jaffar, Advocate, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and carefully perused the file. Since the order for supply of Sprinklers Systems was placed by the defendant on the plaintiff at their office in Delhi, goods were dispatched from Delhi, part payment in advance was forwarded to plaintiff in Delhi and the bill Ex. PW 1/3 containing exclusion jurisdictional clause, this court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit.
5. The lone letter Ex. PW 1/10 from the defendant tentamounts to unambiguous and categorical admission of the case of plaintiff. It is neither a case of short delivery or defect in goods supplied by the plaintiff. The quantum outstanding against the defendant is also not in dispute. The defendant claims to have finalized Suit No. 1031/2008 Page No.3 of 5 with the plaintiff that the balance payment will be made on realization of the amount of subsidy and the share of the cost of Sprinklers from the farmers. No such agreement however has been produced. The defendant was expecting receipt of part subsidy very soon from the government. The farmers were also supposed to pay part of their share of cost of 18 Sprinklers. The remaining 17 sets were to be distributed within two weeks of the date of letter. The payment in any case must have been received by the defendant from the Government of Jharkhand as well the farmers by December, 2002 but plaintiff claims to have not received the outstanding amount till date.
6. It was proposed by the defendant in letter Ex. PW 1/10 that the plaintiff share 50 % expenses of the special campaign for promotion of Sprinklers Irrigation System in the villages of Jharkhand state as that would explore bulk business for plaintiff's products. Neither the actually expenses incurred in the campaign have been specified nor the plaintiff has consented thereto. The defendant thus is liable to pay the outstanding amount of bill Ex. PW 1/3 to the plaintiff.
The due date of payment in the bill has been specified as 18.05.2002. As per letter Ex. PW 1/5 credit facility of 45 days was given to the defendant. The amount of Rs. 2,36,800/ thus had became payable by the defendant on 03.07.2002. Plaintiff has claimed interest at the rate of 24 % per annum as per the condition printed on the back of invoice Ex. PW 1/3. There is however no evidence of plaintiff having realised interest at this rate from its customers in the usual Suit No. 1031/2008 Page No.4 of 5 course of business. There is also no averment of this rate being prevalent in the trade and business community. Plaintiff must have been told the purpose of purchase of Sprinklers System by the defendant. The defendant was instrumental in ensuring installation of Modern Irrigation System by the farmers in the state of Jharkhand. It could not have agreed to bear interest at such a high rate while indulging in philanthropic activities. Nevertheless the defendant having delayed the payment, is liable to compensate the plaintiff with reasonable interest of 12 % per annum.
7. In view of above the suit of plaintiff is decreed against the defendant in the sum of Rs. 2,36,800/ with interest at the rate of 12 % per annum from 03.07.2002 till the date of filing of suit. The accumulated amount shall further carry interest at the same rate from the date of filing of suit till realization and costs.
8. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly and file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 20th September, 2011 (Sunil K. Aggarwal) Addl. District Judge (Central)10 Delhi.
Suit No. 1031/2008 Page No.5 of 5 Suit No. 1031/2008 Page No.6 of 5