Delhi District Court
M/S Krs Cargo & Courier Services Pvt. Ltd vs M/S Nam Exports India on 31 March, 2016
IN THE COURT OF MS. NEHA, CIVIL JUDGE09,
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Suit No. 138/15
M/s KRS Cargo & Courier Services Pvt. Ltd.
Office at 3695, Dariban Pan,
Near New Delhi Railway Station
(opposite Sheela Cinema)
Paharganj, New Delhi - 110055
Through its Director / AR
(Shri Santosh Kumar) .... Plaintiff.
Versus
1. M/s NAM Exports India
Through its partners
Office at : C 1/8, Bandh Road,
Sangam Vihar (Near Sainik Farm)
New Delhi 110062.
India.
2. Mr. Sanjay, Partners
of M/s Nam Exports India
office at : C1/8, Bandh Road,
Sangam Vihar (near Sainik Farm)
New Delhi - 110062.
India. .... Defendants.
Suit No. 138/2015 KRS Cargo & Courier Vs. NAM Exports Page 1 of 6
Date of Institution : 17.07.2015
Date of reserving order : 23.03.2016
Date of pronouncement : 31.03.2016
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose off the suit under Order 37 CPC seeking recovery of Rs. 85,686/ along with pendente lite and future interest @ 18% per annum.
2. The plaintiff has filed the present suit submitting that the defendant no. 1 is a partnership firm and the defendant no. 2 is the partner of the firm and overall Incharge of all transactions and business carried out by the firm. It is submitted that the defendants approached the plaintiff at Delhi in the month of August 2012 seeking transportation / Cargo Services for transportation of goods from Chennai and Vaniyambdi to Delhi and from Delhi to Chennai and Vaniyambdi.
3. It is further submitted that the plaintiff agreed to render transportation services on mutually agreed terms and conditions since August 2012. Bills related to transportation services were raised from time to time and payments were released by the defendants. Since Suit No. 138/2015 KRS Cargo & Courier Vs. NAM Exports Page 2 of 6 beginning, the defendants had been irregular in releasing the payments. They also started defaulting in payments which resulted into certain outstanding against the defendants for the services rendered. A sum of Rs. 85,696/ was due and payable till January 2014. Despite repeated requests and reminders, the defendants did not make the payments. The legal notice dated 14/08/2014 was sent to the defendants demanding the outstanding payment. However, the defendants failed to make the payment. Therefore, the present suit has been filed under Order 37 CPC for recovery of money.
4. The plaintiff has filed the present suit under Order 37 CPC on the bills raised upon the defendant. The plaintiff has placed on record the bills dated 31/08/2012, 15/09/2012, 30/09/2012, 31/10/2012, 30/11/2012, 31/12/2012, 31/03/2013, 30/04/2013, 15/05/2013, 31/05/2013, 30/06/2013, 31/08/2013, 30/09/2013, 15/10/2013, 31/10/2013, 25/11/2013, 30/11/2013, 31/12/2013 and 31/01/2014.
5. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the matter of Jatin Koticha vs Vfc Industries Pvt. Ltd. 2008 (2) BomCR 155 has observed as under:
"5. Now it is clear that there is no written contract signed by both the Suit No. 138/2015 KRS Cargo & Courier Vs. NAM Exports Page 3 of 6 parties relied on by the plaintiff. It is not the requirement of the law that it should be a written contract signed by both the parties. What is necessary is that the suit should be based on a written contract. That, one can find in this case, in the form of invoices which were raised on the defendants along with delivery of the goods in pursuance of each purchase order. The invoices, as stated above, contained the terms and conditions. There is a clear parole acceptance of the invoice on the part of the defendants (Emphasis supplied). The defendants accepted delivery of the goods along with the invoice without any demur or suggestion that they do not accept any of the terms whether pertaining to the rate, price, quantity etc. It makes no difference therefore that the invoices are not signed by both the parties. I am of view that the invoices must be treated as a written contract and the suit based on such invoices is a suit based on the written contract."
6. In the present case, the plaintiff has placed on record invoices submitting that the service was provided to the defendant and invoices were raised, but the defendant has failed to make any payment. The present suit filed under Order 37 CPC is maintainable on the basis of invoices / bills raised by the plaintiff for the services rendered.
7. After filing of the suit, the summons in the prescribed format under Order 37 CPC was issued to the defendants and the defendants were served on 17/02/2016 through ordinary process. No appearance has Suit No. 138/2015 KRS Cargo & Courier Vs. NAM Exports Page 4 of 6 been entered by the defendants till date.
8. Order 37 rule 2 (3) CPC provides that it after service of summons, the defendant fails to enter appearance within prescribed period, allegation in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the matter of M/S U.K. Paints (India) Ltd. vs M/S Surlux Medi Equip Ltd. 94 (2001) DLT 453 has also observed, "Since this is a suit under summary procedure of Order 37 CPC the same has to be decreed in view of the provisions of Order 37 rule 2 subrule 3 CPC which provide that if the defendant does not enter into appearance within ten days of such service the allegations in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree not exceeding the sum mentioned therein together with interest at the rate specified."
9. In this case also, the defendant has been served with the summons in the prescribed format under order 37 CPC on 17/02/2016. The defendant has failed to enter appearance. The plaintiff has placed on record the original invoices raised for transport service provided to the defendant. Legal notice with postal receipt has also been placed on record whereby the defendant has been asked to make payment of the Suit No. 138/2015 KRS Cargo & Courier Vs. NAM Exports Page 5 of 6 outstanding amount. There is nothing on record to doubt the documents placed by the plaintiff. The perusal of the invoices show that the plaintiff has raised invoices for a total amount of Rs. 3,89,150/. The plaintiff has placed on record the statement of account which shows that a sum of Rs. 85,696/ is still outstanding and payable by the defendants for the services provided by the plaintiff.
10. In view of discussion hereinabove and also in view of the aforesaid provision, this Court is of an opinion that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of Rs. 85,696/. The invoices would also show that if the settlement was not done within 10 days of the bill date, 24% per annum interest would be charged on the due amount. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs. 85,696/ with pendente lite interest @ 24% till the date of decree. The plaintiff is also held entitled to the costs of the suit. Decree Sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room after necessary compliance.
Pronounced in the open court (NEHA)
on 31.03.2016 Civil Judge09, Central
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
Suit No. 138/2015 KRS Cargo & Courier Vs. NAM Exports Page 6 of 6