Delhi District Court
Federal Express Corporation vs . Varun Dhir on 24 January, 2015
Federal Express Corporation Vs. Varun Dhir
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE02 (SOUTH)
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI
Presided Over By: Sh. Vishal Pahuja
In the matter of :
CS No. 463/14
Federal Express Corporation (FedEx),
having its office at:
Universal Trade Tower,
7th Floor, Sector49, Sohna Gurgaon Road,
Gurgaon, Haryana.
Through its Authorized Representative:
Mr. Vikram Mehta ... Plaintiff
Versus
Mr. Varun Dhir
Proprietor
HARERA
At: 190A Caraipa Marg,
Sainik Farms,
New Delhi110062
.... Defendant
Date of Institution : 15.05.2013
Date of Reserving Judgment : 24.01.2015
Date of Decision : 24.01.2015
Final Decision : Decreed
J U D G M E N T
(on suit for Decree of Rs. 50,778/).
1. This suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of a sum of Rs. 50,778/ alongwith interest @24% per annum against the defendant.
CS No. 463/14 1 of 5 Federal Express Corporation Vs. Varun Dhir
2. Briefly stated, case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a Body Corporate constituted under the law prevailing in Delaware, USA. The plaintiff inter alia is engaged in the business of Airfreight and Shipment of Cargos to the various destinations outside India etc. That the defendant is engaged in the business of import and export of Home Furnishings and has obtained certificate of ImporterExporter Code (IEC) bearing no. 0507075056 dated 10.01.2008 issued by Ministry of Commerce. That the defendant entered into a service contract with the plaintiff in terms of FedEX Service Contract i.e. FSC dated 14.04.2009 (hereinafter referred as the said Agreement) and pursuant to the said agreement an Account/Customer no. 469983560 was issued by the plaintiff to the defendant. That pursuant to the execution of the said agreement dated 14.04.2009 by the defendant, the plaintiff i.e. FedEx agreed to provide Shipper services to various destinations outside India that are serviced by FedEx or its service participants (details of which are given in the Tariff Chart.) Based on the representations made by the defendant and the assurance given under the said agreement, the plaintiff started delivering the consignments of the defendant, to various destinations as desired and directed by the defendant. That in performance of the said agreement, the plaintiff shipped five consignments of the defendant vide Air Way Bills dated 23.06.2010, 07.07.2010, 08.07.2010 and 10.07.2010. That against the said Air Way Bills, the plaintiff raised an invoice dated 03.08.2010. Again the plaintiff shipped CS No. 463/14 2 of 5 Federal Express Corporation Vs. Varun Dhir three consignments of the defendant vide Air Way Bills dated 05.08.2010 and 11.08.2010 against the said Air Way Bills, the plaintiff raised an invoice dated 01.09.2010. The above said invoices were duly served upon the defendant. However, till date the defendant has failed to clear its dues, which the defendant is liable to pay in accordance of the said agreement. That since the defendant failed to pay its aforesaid dues, the plaintiff was constrained to serve a legal notice dated 29.03.2013 but all in vain. Hence, the present suit is filed by the plaintiff against the defendant.
3. Notice of the suit was duly served upon the defendant by way of publication on 17.07.2014. However, none appeared on behalf of the defendant nor the written statement (WS) was filed. Thus, vide order dated 07.01.2015, defence of the defendant was struck off and matter was proceeded exparte.
4. In order to prove its case, the plaintiff examined Mr. Vikram Mehta, Authorised Signatory of plaintiff as PW1 who tendered his evidence way of affidavit i.e. Ex.PW1/A. He also relied upon documents Ex.PW1/1 (copy of SPAOSR), Mark A (power of attorney), Mark B (copy of certificate), Mark C (copy of letter dated 05.09.2005), Ex.PW1/5 (FedEx service contract dated 14.04.2009), Ex.PW1/6 colly (invoice alongwith dated 03.08.2010 alongwith airways bills), Ex.PW1/7 colly (invoice dated 01.09.2010 alongwith airway CS No. 463/14 3 of 5 Federal Express Corporation Vs. Varun Dhir bills), Ex.PW1/8 (legal notice dated 29.03.2013) and Ex.PW1/9 (courier receipt) and Ex.PW1/10 (statement of account) and thereafter, plaintiff closed it exparte evidence.
5. I have heard the exparte arguments on behalf of the plaintiff and also gone through case file carefully.
6. As the plaintiff witness was not cross examined, the testimony of PW1 remained unchallenged and unrebutted. The documents relied upon by the plaintiff have also been duly proved. There is nothing on record to cast a doubt upon the testimony of plaintiff witness.
Plaintiff has claimed interest @ 24% per annum, which seems to be excessive and exorbitant. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, interest @12% per annum seems to be just and appropriate.
7. In view of the above discussion, I am of the considered opinion that the plaintiff has been able to establish its case by leading cogent evidence. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed and a decree for recovery of Rs.50,778/ alongwith the interest @ 12% per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization is hereby passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Costs of the suit are also awarded to the plaintiff. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
CS No. 463/14 4 of 5 Federal Express Corporation Vs. Varun Dhir
8. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Court on 24th Day of January 2015 (Vishal Pahuja) CJ02 (South)/Saket Courts New Delhi/24.01.2015 CS No. 463/14 5 of 5