Delhi District Court
Ravinder Singh vs M/S The Sunworld Travels on 6 June, 2024
CS SCJ 1639/18 Ravinder Singh Vs. M/s The Sunworld Travels
In the Court of Ms. Neetu Nagar, Judge Small Causes Court cum
Additional Senior Civil Judge cum Guardian Judge, South East
District, Saket Courts, New Delhi
Civil Suit No. : 1639/2018
CNR No. : DLSE03-002465-2018
In the matter of:
Ravinder Singh
S/o Sh. Gautam Singh
R/o G-106/4, Jaitpur Extension Part-III
Khadda Colony, New Delhi-110044. .... Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. M/s. The Sunworld Travels
Through its proprietor
2. Sh. Sunil Khatana
Proprietor / Director
M/s. The Sunworld Travels
Office at : 239/18
Shanti Nagar, Near NH-8
Gurgaon-122001. ... Defendants
********
Date of Institution of suit : 12.11.2018
Final arguments heard on : 01.06.2024
Judgment pronounced on : 06.06.2024
Decision of the case : Dismissed
********
(Neetu Nagar)
JSCC-ASCJ-GJ/South East
Delhi:06.06.2024 Page 1 of 16
CS SCJ 1639/18 Ravinder Singh Vs. M/s The Sunworld Travels
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.99,100/- (RUPEES NINETY NINE
THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED ONLY) ALONG WITH PENDENTE
LITE AND FUTURE INTEREST.
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall dispose of the present suit filed by the plaintiff seeking recovery of an amount of Rs. 99,100/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest.
PLAINT
2. Briefly the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a driver having his own car bearing No. DL-12TB-1978 (Ertiga VXI). The defendant No.1 is a registered company and providing the requisite travel services to various well-known companies and the defendant No.2 is the Proprietor/Director thereof. 2.1 It is averred that there was an oral agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant No.2 that the defendants shall pay Rs.550/- per trip to the plaintiff for picking up the staff from within Delhi (Madangir, Saket, Pushp Vihar, Malviya Nagar etc.) and dropping them at their work place/I.G.T. near Kapashera Border. The plaintiff started the work w.e.f. 20.08.2017 and worked till 24.09.2017. The defendants had also orally agreed to pay the charges for the services rendered by the plaintiff for the period of previous month, on 15th of the next month so that the defendants remain safe by withholding the charges of the plaintiff for 15 days of his service. Thereafter, the plaintiff started work w.e.f. 01.08.2017 and worked till 24.09.2017.
2.2 It is averred that the plaintiff had rendered services to the defendants worth Rs.1,11,100/- (Rs. One Lac Eleven Thousand and One Hundred Only) i.e. total of 202 car trips (one way) @ Rs.550/- out of which the defendants have paid a sum of Rs.12,000/-
(Neetu Nagar) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ/South East Delhi:06.06.2024 Page 2 of 16 CS SCJ 1639/18 Ravinder Singh Vs. M/s The Sunworld Travels to the plaintiff through cheque bearing No.994247. The defendants promised to pay the remaining balance in the month of October 2017. Due to some unknown reasons, the defendants stopped taking the services of plaintiff after 24.09.2017. The defendants have failed to pay the balance payment of Rs.99,100/- inspite of various requests made by the plaintiff. The plaintiff issued legal notice dated 17.03.2018 to the defendants, perhaps it was duly delivered since the defendants had talked to the plaintiff in regard to the balance amount but did not contact on this issue. Hence, the present suit has been filed, praying for the following reliefs:
a) Pass a decree for a sum of Rs.99,100/- (Rupees Ninety Nine Thousand One Hundred Only) in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and interest @18% p.a. and cost of the suit on the aforesaid amount claimed, from the date of filing of suit till its realization may also be granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants;
b) Pass any other or further order (s) which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice.
SUMMONING OF DEFENDANTS AND CHAIN OF SUBSEQUENT EVENTS
3. Upon receipt of the plaint, summons of the suit for settlement of issues were directed to be issued to the defendants vide order dated 12.11.2018. The defendants were duly served with the summons and entered appearance through counsel.
(Neetu Nagar) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ/South East Delhi:06.06.2024 Page 3 of 16 CS SCJ 1639/18 Ravinder Singh Vs. M/s The Sunworld Travels JOINT WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS NO.1 AND 2
4. Written statement has been filed on behalf of defendants taking various preliminary objections on the ground of no cause of action; plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts from this Hon'ble Court. It is stated that in August 2017, the plaintiff asked the defendants to take his services and oral agreement was made between the defendants that the plaintiff would take the staff from Delhi (Madangir, Saket, Pushp Vihar, Malviya Nagar, etc) and drop them at their work place / I.G. T. near Kapashera Border. It was also agreed that if any accident happens with the vehicle of the plaintiff then he would be the only person responsible / liable for expenses incurred in the maintenance of the vehicle or against any claim made by any passenger regarding any treatment / medical expenses.
4.1 It is submitted that the plaintiff started work from 20.08.2017 and worked till 25.09.2017 thereby a total 198 car trips for Rs.76,598/- were completed, in which 2 trips for Rs. 300/- each, 2 trips for Rs. 450/- each, 17 trips for Rs. 500/- each were completed. The plaintiff was working with the defendants from 20.08.2017. On 24.09.2017 / 25.09.2017 at about 12:30 AM, when the plaintiff was going from Gurugram to Delhi in his car bearing no. DL12ZB-1978 then his car met with an accident near Aya Nagar, New Delhi. There were two persons inside the car i.e. the plaintiff who was the driver and another passenger namely Mr. Govind Prasad who was seriously injured in the accident and was admitted to Columbia Asia Hospital, Palam Vihar, Block-F, Gol Chakkar, Gurgaon-122017. The injured was claiming for compensation for his treatment against the accident and scolded the plaintiff to provide compensation or he shall file (Neetu Nagar) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ/South East Delhi:06.06.2024 Page 4 of 16 CS SCJ 1639/18 Ravinder Singh Vs. M/s The Sunworld Travels complaint against him. Then the plaintiff told the defendant no. 2 that he could not afford medical expenses of Mr. Govind Prasad and requested to the defendant to bear the expenses of his treatment and to settle the same from his account. The entire treatment of Mr. Govind Prasad was done at Columbia Asia Hospital and the medical expenses and conveyance of injured Mr. Govind Prasad was of total amount of Rs. 1,11,272/- borne by the defendants.
4.2 It is further stated that the plaintiff did not come after 25.09.2017 for providing his service due to unknown reason. On 25.11.2019, the plaintiff came and settled his account with the defendants. The medical expenses and conveyance of injured Mr. Govind Prasad was adjusted against the sum of Rs. 76,598/- from the account of the plaintiff. The defendants have right to recover the balance / outstanding amount of Rs. 44,274/-. The plaintiff had also given his No Dues Certificate to the defendants. Rest pf the averments of the plaint were denied in toto and it was prayed for dismissal of the suit.
ISSUES FRAMED
5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed vide order dated 04.12.2021:-
1. Whether the plaintiff has rendered services to the defendant worth Rs.1,11,100/- i.e. total 202 car trips @ Rs.550/- per trip ? OPP
2. Whether the defendant have rightly deducted Rs.76598/-
from total medical expenses of Rs.111272/- of plaintiff born by the defendant? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree sum of Rs.99100 alongwith interest @ 18 % p.a. till actual realization? OPP
4. Relief.
EVIDENCE OF PLAINTIFF (Neetu Nagar) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ/South East Delhi:06.06.2024 Page 5 of 16 CS SCJ 1639/18 Ravinder Singh Vs. M/s The Sunworld Travels
6. Plaintiff, in support of his case, has placed on record his affidavit in evidence vide Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the following documents:
Sl. No. Exhibits/Mark Details of Documents
1. Ex. PW-1/1 (OSR) Copy of Aadhar Card
2. Ex. PW1/2(OSR) Copy of ID card issued to the deponent
by the defendant
3. Ex. PW1/3 Copy of legal notice
4. Ex. PW1/4 Copy of postal receipt
5. Ex.PW1/5 Copy of date wise details of
engagement of vehicle of plaintiff
6.1 PW1 was cross examined on behalf of the defendant at
length and discharged. Thereafter, no witness has been examined on behalf of the plaintiff and plaintiff evidence was closed vide order 06.05.2023. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for defendants evidence.
EVIDENCE OF DEFENDANTS
7. The defendants examined Mr. Deepak Kumar as DW1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW1/1. He relied upon the following documents:
Exhibit Document
Ex. DW1A Authority letter
Mark DW1/B Copy of details of trips
Mark PW1/D1 (colly) Medical bills
Mark PW1/D2 No Dues Certificate
(Neetu Nagar)
JSCC-ASCJ-GJ/South East
Delhi:06.06.2024 Page 6 of 16
CS SCJ 1639/18 Ravinder Singh Vs. M/s The Sunworld Travels
8. The defendants also examined the injured Mr. Govind Prasad as DW2 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. DW2/1. He proved upon his medical bills / document vide [Ex. DW2/A (OSR)]. DW1 and DW2 were duly cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff. Thereafter, no witness has been examined on behalf of defendants. Accordingly, evidence on behalf of the defendants was closed vide order dated 18.05.2024 and the matter was fixed for final arguments.
ARGUMENTS
9. I have heard the submissions of learned Counsel for both the parties who argued as per their respective pleadings and carefully perused the material available on record. However, the arguments of both the parties are not being reproduced for the sake of brevity and shall be dealt hereinafter.
OBSERVATIONS, FINDINGS AND REASONS
10. My issuewise findings are as under:
10.1 The onus to prove issues no. 1 and 3 was placed on the plaintiff and that to prove issue no.2 was placed on the defendants. All the issues are being taken up together as they are interconnected. 10.2 It is relevant here, before appreciation of evidence and deciding the issues, the position of law as settled is that the onus of proof in civil trial is the obligation on the plaintiff that the plaintiff would adduce evidence that proves his claims on preponderance of probability against the defendant. As per the principles of Indian law, until and unless an exception is created by law, the burden of proof lies on the person making any claim or asserting any fact. A person (Neetu Nagar) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ/South East Delhi:06.06.2024 Page 7 of 16 CS SCJ 1639/18 Ravinder Singh Vs. M/s The Sunworld Travels who asserts a particular fact is required to affirmatively establish it.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in R.V.E. Venkatachala Gounder Versus Arulmigu Viswesaraswami & V.P. Temple & another, VI (2003) SLT 307 observed that whether a civil or a criminal case, the anvil for testing of 'proved', 'disproved' and 'not proved', as defined in Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is one and the same. A fact is said to be 'proved' when, if considering the matters before it, the Court either believes it to exist, or considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of a particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. It was observed in A. Raghavamma & another Versus Chenchamma & another, AIR 1964 SC 136, there is an essential distinction between burden of proof and onus of proof:
burden of proof lies upon a person who has to prove the fact and which never shifts. Onus of proof shifts. Such a shifting of onus is a continuous process in the evaluation of evidence. It was observed in Rangammal Versus Kuppuswami and others, Civil Appeal No 562 of 2003 that burden of proof lies on the person who first asserts the fact and not on the one who denies that fact to be true. The responsibility of the defendant to prove a fact to be true would start only when the authenticity of the fact is proved by the plaintiff. In Anil Rishi Versus Gurbaksh Singh, (2006) 5 SCC 558, it has been held that the burden of proving the facts rests on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative issues.
10.3 It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff rendered services worth Rs.1,11,100/- to the defendant out of which the defendants paid only Rs.12,000/- and there remains an amount to the tune of Rs.99,100/- to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff. Let us first have a look at the admitted facts between the parties. Admittedly, the Plaintiff was engaged for providing cab/transport services by the (Neetu Nagar) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ/South East Delhi:06.06.2024 Page 8 of 16 CS SCJ 1639/18 Ravinder Singh Vs. M/s The Sunworld Travels defendants for the purpose of travelling of staff in his own car bearing no. DL 12 TB 1978 @ Rs.550/- per trip from within Delhi and dropping them at their workplace/I.G.T. near Kapashera border. In order to prove the outstanding dues payable to the plaintiff, learned counsel on behalf of the plaintiff has relied upon copy of date wise details of engagement of the vehicle of the plaintiff vide Ex.PW1/5. A perusal of the same would show that the original document has not been placed on record, however, it is exhibited. It is trite law that mere marking of document is not suffice. From the testimony of PW1, it has transpired that this witness was carrying the original but it could not be understood why the same was not placed on record. Hence, an adverse inference is liable to be raised against the plaintiff in this regard. Be that as it may, a perusal of the said document shows that the first page is in Hindi, whereas the third page is in English.
Pertinently, the plaintiff has deposed during his testimony that he is unable to understand the entries made in English in the record shown, though he has voluntarily deposed that he can make out the debts corresponding to the dates. It has been next admitted by PW1 that the entries on page number 3 of Ex.PW1/5, pertaining to date 29. 08. 2017 to 01. 09. 2017 have been written in one go. He then voluntarily deposed that it was because regular visits to the office was not feasible and hence the entries were made in one go. Meaning thereby that the entries have not been entered regularly. He has deposed regarding the statement made in English, that the same has not been written by him, and that he has taken help of one of the official/person at the office of the defendant for noting. It is noteworthy that the plaintiff has neither named the said person nor he has examined him in the court. Hence, an adverse inference is liable to be raised against the plaintiff in this regard. Resultantly, not much reliance can be placed on such a self (Neetu Nagar) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ/South East Delhi:06.06.2024 Page 9 of 16 CS SCJ 1639/18 Ravinder Singh Vs. M/s The Sunworld Travels serving document which admittedly has been written by the plaintiff himself and does not bear any stamp or endorsement or receiving by the defendant and is a rough record maintained by the plaintiff as per his own admission. Furthermore, from a careful perusal of Ex.PW1/5, it has transpired that the plaintiff has taken trips to various other parts of Delhi and hence, there is merit in the contention of learned counsel of the defendants that same fare could not have been charged for longer distance. Hence, it was rightly argued by learned counsel on behalf of the defendants that no reliance can be placed on Ex.PW1/5 for the purpose of proving outstanding amount as the same is not signed on behalf of defendant or any passenger ;is a rough estimate as per the plaintiff as well; the original was never brought on record and has not been regularly maintained.
10.4 On the contrary, in order to show that no amount was payable towards the plaintiff, learned counsel on behalf of the defendant has relied on statement Mark DW1/B. It was contended that there were only 198 trips. From a perusal of the same, it has transpired that the total amount outstanding to the plaintiff was to the tune of Rs. 76,598/- and an amount of Rs.9600/-has been deducted towards GPS rent October 17 to March 18 totalling to Rs.66,998/- Hence, even if the plaintiff has not been able to prove Ex. PW1/5, this document can be taken into consideration for assessing the amount due towards the plaintiff which runs to the tune of Rs.66,998/-.It is further mentioned therein that the medical expenses incurred was to to the tune of Rs.1,11,272/- and the total balance payable by the plaintiff was Rs.44,274/-. Meaning thereby that though the plaintiff has not been able to prove the outstanding amount to the tune of Rs.99,100/- by any specific evidence but from the admission of the defendant in Mark (Neetu Nagar) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ/South East Delhi:06.06.2024 Page 10 of 16 CS SCJ 1639/18 Ravinder Singh Vs. M/s The Sunworld Travels DW1/B, it has transpired that total amount regarding service of the plaintiff was to the tune of Rs.66,998/-.
10.5 It was urged on behalf of the defendants that amount to the tune Rs.1,11,272/- was payable by the plaintiff to the defendant as the said amount was spent by the defendants at the instance of the plaintiff by way of medical expenses in the accident caused by the vehicle of the plaintiff which resulted in injuries to DW2 Mr. Govind Prasad. It is pertinent to mention that no replication has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff in this regard denying the said averments as taken by the defendants in the written statement. The onus was on the defendants to prove the factum of accident and payment made by the defendants to the injured Mr. Govind Prasad as a consequence thereof which has been allegedly deducted from the payment due to the plaintiff. Clearly nothing was reduced into writing regarding any such agreement that the payment if incurred in any accident by the vehicle of the plaintiff would be paid by the defendants on behalf of the plaintiff. Be that as it may, it is an admitted fact that the agreement for providing service by the plaintiff to the defendant was oral. The plaintiff has categorically denied any accident that resulted in injuries to Sh. Govind Prasad. However, from a perusal of the cross- examination of PW1, it stands clear that learned counsel on behalf of the defendants has been able to extract vital admissions from the lengthy cross-examination of PW1. It is trite law that admission is the best piece of evidence against the persons making admission. Though the plaintiff has denied that any accident took place on the intervening night of 24.09.2017-25.09.2017 at about 12:30 AM, but he admitted that on the said intervening night his car bearing number DL1ZB - 1978 did hit another vehicle which was a Wagon R. He has then deposed that there were five persons other than him. He could not say (Neetu Nagar) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ/South East Delhi:06.06.2024 Page 11 of 16 CS SCJ 1639/18 Ravinder Singh Vs. M/s The Sunworld Travels if Sh. Govindram was also sitting in the car. Hence, PW1 has not denied the presence of Sh. Govindram in his vehicle at the time of collision. He has denied the suggestion that Sh. Govindram had suffered serious injuries. He has denied that a PCR call was made to the police and then he deposed that he did not remember who made the PCR call. Then in the next breath he admitted that a PCR call was made to the police. Hence, the plaintiff made wavering statements in this regard. Later he admitted that the police officials had also met him and were present with him at the hospital. He admitted further that after the PCR call was made no proceedings were initiated against him. He was taken to Fatehpur Beri police station. Only he and the driver of the Wagon R vehicle were taken there. He admitted further that there was no written agreement prepared between him and the other driver of the other vehicle. He deposed then that they were only asked if he had no objection and were made to sign their statement and asked to leave. Hence, from the testimony of PW1 it has transpired that an accident took place between his vehicle and Wagon R regarding which he was taken to Police Station else there was no reason to take him to the police station. The plaintiff has himself deposed that no settlement took place in writing and that his statement was recorded in writing. Hence, it was not required to bring police record by the defendants as argued by learned counsel of the plaintiff as the same stands confirmed from the admission of the the plaintiff himself. Although the plaintiff has denied earlier if Sh. Govindram was also sitting in the car however, in the later part, he has deposed that he cannot say as to who had taken Sh. Govindram to the hospital. He has deposed further that the company would give them a roaster as per the details of the passenger and the routes were mentioned. After the accident, the roaster was given to the other driver for 24.09.2017 -
(Neetu Nagar) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ/South East Delhi:06.06.2024 Page 12 of 16 CS SCJ 1639/18 Ravinder Singh Vs. M/s The Sunworld Travels 25.09.2017. Hence, it is amply clear that the plaintiff is not only concealing about the fact that an accident took place but also denied the presence of Sh. Govindram in his vehicle. Hence, in case of any accident, the liability to reimburse for the hospital expenses of the injured, if any, as a result of the injury sustained by virtue of accident caused by the driver would be that of the owner / driver of the vehicle. No written contract in this regard is otherwise required. Further, it has been suggested to learned counsel of the plaintiff to DW1 that Wagon R hit first the vehicle bearing no.DL 1 ZB 1978. Hence, accident stands admitted as is the case of the defendants. By stretch of no imagination, the defendant can be made liable for making payment qua any expenses to the injured as a result of accident involving the vehicle of the plaintiff. Admittedly, the plaintiff has not made any payment to Mr. Govind Ram. On the contrary, the defendant has examined its AR namely Deepak Kumar DW1, who has deposed that call was made at 100 no. which also stands corroborated by the plaintiff himself. He has deposed further that Settlement was arrived at by the police with the injured and driver for the purpose of treatment and it was decided to pay the expenses incurred in the treatment by the owner of Ertiga Car bearing vehicle No. DL1ZB 1978. The settlement was reduced into writing by the police and signatures of injured Govind Prashad was also obtained in the police station Fatehpur Beri. He did not have copy of the said settlement. It was suggested to this witness that the settlement took place with the owner of another unknown vehicle. To which he answered that it is incorrect. Then he deposed in next breath that it was alleged by the injured that it was the fault of their driver namely Ravinder and the treatment has to done by Ravinder only. He deposed further that treatment was got done by them by the amount that was to be deducted from the account of (Neetu Nagar) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ/South East Delhi:06.06.2024 Page 13 of 16 CS SCJ 1639/18 Ravinder Singh Vs. M/s The Sunworld Travels Ravinder. No suggestion has been given to this witness that no such amount to the tune of Rs.1,11,272 /-has been paid on behalf of the defendants to the injured Sh.Govind Ram. It is merely suggested that the amount has been unlawfully deducted from the account of Ravinder.
10.6 The defendant has also examined the injured as DW2 Mr. Govind Prasad who has categorically deposed that on 24.09.2017/25.09.2017, he was going with the plaintiff in his vehicle along with 5 other passengers of Interglobe Technologies Pvt. Ltd. He has deposed in his evidence affidavit that due to the negligence of the plaintiff, he met with an accident and got seriously injured in the said accident. However,during his cross-examination, he deposed that he did not know the names of the persons who were going with him in vehicle bearing no. DLIZB-1978 on 24-25.09.2017. It was suggested to him that he was not traveling on that day with the said five persons. However, it stands admitted by PW1 that there were other 5 persons other than him. Surprisingly, he denied during his cross-examination that the plaintiff was driving rashly and negligently at that time. Be that as it may, DW2 has categorically deposed that on 24/25.09.2017, he took the vehicle bearing no. DL1ZB-1978 from his office at Gurgoan for going to his home at about 12:30 in the night. He reached Aya Nagar at about 12:45 in the night. At about 12:45 PM vehicle bearing no. DLIZB-1978 hit another car make Wagon R. He did not remember which vehicle hit first. However, it has been suggested by learned counsel of plaintiff to DW1 that Wagon R hit first. It was next suggested to this witness by learned counsel on behalf of the plaintiff that no person was injured in the accident. However, DW2 has placed on record his medical documents vide Ex.PW1/D1/ Ex.DW2/A(OSR). From a perusal of medical certificate dated (Neetu Nagar) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ/South East Delhi:06.06.2024 Page 14 of 16 CS SCJ 1639/18 Ravinder Singh Vs. M/s The Sunworld Travels 07.02.2018, it has transpired that Sh.Govind Ram was under treatment from 28.09.2017 till date i.e. 07.02.2018 as he was diagnosed with head chest region and pelvic fracture. Hence, it stands proved that DW2 actually received injuries. DW2 has categorically deposed that his entire treatment was done at Columbia Asia Hospital presently known as Manipal Hospital and his medical expenses and conveyance was to the tune of Rs. 1,11,272/-which was borne by the defendants. No suggestion has been given to this witness by learned counsel of the plaintiff that no such expenses was incurred and that same was not paid by the defendants to the hospital. It has been simply stated that the medical documents are forged and fabricated but no evidence to that effect has been led on behalf of the plaintiff in rebuttal. Hence, the defendants have been able to discharge their onus and it stands proved that the defendants incurred an expenditure of Rs. 1,11,272/- in the treatment of DW2 Govind Ram for injuries caused in the collision between the vehicle of the plaintiff and one Wagon R. 10.7 Pertinently, the plaintiff was also confronted with no due certificate dated 25.11.2017 Mark PW1/D2. Although the said document is a photocopy, however, the plaintiff has admitted his signature thereon. He has voluntarily deposed that he was made to sign the document under the impression that his accounts are being settled and therefore he was let off. However, he has not pleaded that he was made to sign or compelled to sign either in his pleadings or in the legal notice sent by him to the defendants. He has himself admitted that he did not file any police complaint after he was made to sign on no due certificate Mark PW1/D2, despite the balance amount as mentioned being due to him. It is hard to believe that any reasonable person will sign without understanding the contents of the document. Meaning thereby that the plaintiff consciously signed Mark PW1/D2 (Neetu Nagar) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ/South East Delhi:06.06.2024 Page 15 of 16 CS SCJ 1639/18 Ravinder Singh Vs. M/s The Sunworld Travels realizing that there were no dues outstanding against the defendants. As a result of above discussion, it can be concluded that the plaintiff miserably failed to prove any outstanding amount payable by the defendants to the plaintiff.
10.8 Resultantly, issues no. 1 to 3 are decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
RELIEF
11. In view of the findings and reasons stated herein above, the suit of the plaintiff stands dismissed with costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
12. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Announced in the open Digitally signed by NEETU court today i.e. 06.06.2024 NEETU NAGAR Date: (This judgment contains 16 pages NAGAR 2024.06.06 17:50:16 signed by the undersigned) +0530 (Neetu Nagar) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ/South East Saket Courts: New Delhi (Neetu Nagar) JSCC-ASCJ-GJ/South East Delhi:06.06.2024 Page 16 of 16