Delhi District Court
Cs No. 1584/18 vs M/S Smartbox Ecommerce Solutions Pvt. ... on 3 October, 2019
1/13
IN THE COURT OF SUDHIR KUMAR SIROHI, ACJ/CCJ/ARC,
SOUTH EAST DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, DELHI.
CS No. 1584/18
Mudita Express Cargo Pvt. Ltd.
Represented through the Authorized Representative
Sh. Sanjay Kumar (ManagerAccountant)
M66, 2nd Floor,
Greater KailashII
New Delhi110048 ... Plaintiff
Versus
1. M/s Smartbox Ecommerce Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Registered Office:D868
New Friends Colony
New Delhi110065
2. Sh. Amit Sawhney
Directors M/s Smartbox Ecommerce Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Registered Office:D868
New Friends Colony
New Delhi110065
3. Sh. Vineet Sawhney
Director
M/s Smartbox Ecommerce Solutions Pvt. Ltd.
Registered Office:D868
New Friends Colony
New Delhi110065 ... Defendants
CS no. 1584/18
Mudita Express Cargo pvt Otd. Vs. M/s Smartbox
2/13
Date of institution : 31.10.2018
Date of final decision : 03.10.2019
SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS. 63,929/.
JUDGMENT
1. Brief case as discernible from the plaint are that the defendant no. 1 is a private limited company and the defendant no.2 and 3 are directors of defendant no. 1 company. Defendants had approached the plaintiff for providing plaintiff's cargo and logistics services to the defendants on credit basis in Delhi and throughout the Country. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into an understanding/agreement whereby the plaintiff agreed to provide its cargo & logistics services to the defendant on credit basis in Delhi and throughout country and the defendants agreed to make payment of the cargo and logistic services provided by the plaintiff. Defendants assured the plaintiff that they would make the payment for the cargo services of the plaintiff whithin fifteen days from the date of the submissions of bills to the defendants failing which the plaintiff holds the right to claim interest @ 24% per annum for any payment made after expiry of the said credit period.
CS no. 1584/18Mudita Express Cargo pvt Otd. Vs. M/s Smartbox 3/13
2. It is further averred by the plaintiff that defendants commitment and assurance to pay, the plaintiff starting rendering services of transportation of cargo, on credit basis, to the defendants under their instructions on time to time in Delhi. The plaintiff used to supply/serve the bills for transporting the consignment to the defendants. There were the terms mentioned in the invoice that any difference may be notified within three days of receipt of invoice/bills and interest.
3. It is also averred on behalf of plaintiff that plaintiff maintained a running ledger account in respect of cargo services given to the defendants containing the entries of the bills raised by the plaintiff to the defendants. The bills were duly submitted to the defendants by the plaintiff on time to time, being cargo and logistics services charges and thus Rs. 63929/ is outstanding on the defendants for cargo & logistics services already rendered to the defendants by the plaintiff but the defendants have not paid the same. Thereafter plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 25.04.2018 to the defendants. Defendants after receiving legal notice have failed to make payments to the plaintiff of Rs. 63,929/.
4. Upon service of summons of suit on all the defendants. Vakalatnama was filed on behalf of all the defendants on 24.01.2019.
CS no. 1584/18Mudita Express Cargo pvt Otd. Vs. M/s Smartbox 4/13 Written statement has been filed on behalf of defendants on 12.03.2019.
5. It is averred by the defendants in written statement that the defendants only commenced the business with the plaintiff company but when the plaintiff failed to provide the appropriate services to the defendant, and moreover the task of deliveries assigned to them so many parcels were undelivered which are still untraceable at the end of the plaintiff. The defendant strongly opposed for the bills and story raised by the plaintiff as there is no claim lies against thereof. It is also averred by the defendants that the plaintiff and the defendants did not enter into an understanding/agreement whereby the plaintiff agreed to provide its cargo & logistics services to the defendants on credit basis in Delhi and throughout the country and the defendants agreed to make payment of the cargo & logistics serves provided by the plaintiff, the defendants did not assure the plaintiff that they would make the payment for the cargo services of the plaintiff within fifteen days from the date of the submissions of bills to the defendant failing which the plaintiff holds the right to claim interest @24% per annum for any payment made after expiry of the said credit. It is also averred by the defendant that no such agreement as mentioned was not executed in between the plaintiff and defendant.
CS no. 1584/18Mudita Express Cargo pvt Otd. Vs. M/s Smartbox 5/13
6. It is also averred by the defendants that whatever the work assigned to the plaintiff was not done well by them and moreover damage was caused to defendant by losing the consignments of the defendant which are still not traceable and bill raised are entirely false and forged and defendant is not having any liability to pay the bills.
Issues
7. After completion of proceedings, following issues were framed vide order dt. 10.04.2019:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for the sum of Rs. 63929/ against the defendant with interest rate @ 24% per annum from the date of bills till the filing of the suit? OPP
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the pendente lite and future interest against the defendant @ 24% per annum? OPP
3. Whether the plaintiff has not assigned work properly and caused damaged to the consignment of the defendant? OPD
4. Whether the bills are raised by the defendant are forged and fabricated?OPD CS no. 1584/18 Mudita Express Cargo pvt Otd. Vs. M/s Smartbox 6/13
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the cost of proceedings?OPP
6. Relief.
Evidence
8. In order to prove case of plaintiff, plaintiff has examined Mr. Sanjay Kumar as PW 1 and filed his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW 1/A and relied upon the documents i.e.
1. The original board resolution is Ex. PW1/1.
2. The signatories detail from the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs is Ex. PW1/2.
3. The Company Mater Data and the Company Signatories details of the Defendant Company from the website of Ministry of Corporate Affairs are Ex. PW1/3 and Ex. PW1/4.
4. The ledger accounts bills/invoices raised by the plaintiff to the defendants is Ex.PW1/5.
5. The bills/invoices are Ex.PW1/6 to PW 1/13.
6. The copy of legal notice dated 25.04.2018 is Ex. PW1/14.
7. Postal receipts are Ex. PW1/15 (Colly).
8. Delivery reports of India Post are Ex. PW1/16 (Colly).
9. Certificate in the form of affidavit in support of the electronic documents is Ex. PW1/17.
CS no. 1584/18Mudita Express Cargo pvt Otd. Vs. M/s Smartbox 7/13 PW1 was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for defendant.
9. Defendant has examined Mr. Subham Singh, Assistant Accountant who filed evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/1 and relied upon copy of board resolution Ex.DW1/A. He was cross examined by the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
10 I have heard Ld. counsel for the plaintiff and perused the written arguments filed by plaintiff and defendants and considered the records.
Issue wise discussion: Now the undersigned is dealing with the issues:
Issue no. 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for the sum of Rs. 63,929/ against the defendant with interest rate @ 24% per annum from the date of bills till the filing of the suit? OPP Issue no. 4. Whether the bills are raised by the defendant are forged and fabricated?OPD Both the issued will be decided by the common discussion as both are interrelated.
11. The onus to prove first issue is on plaintiff and the bills Ex.PW1/6 to Ex.PW1/13 has been denied on behalf of defendants. It CS no. 1584/18 Mudita Express Cargo pvt Otd. Vs. M/s Smartbox 8/13 has further been argued on behalf of defendants that the bills/invoices are entirely forged and fabricated and the defendants do not have any liability for the same.
12. The case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff company provided its Cargo and Logistic services to the defendants on credit basis in Delhi and throughout the country and defendants agreed to make the payment of Cargo and Logistic serviced provided by the plaintiff. The plaintiff in order to support his claim has examined PW1 through his manageraccountant of the plaintiff company and relied upon the document Ex.PW1/5 (ledger account statement) and invoices Ex.PW1/6 to Ex.PW1/13. PW1 during his cross examination has deposed that "I do not remember the date on which agreement took place, I will have to check and verify from the company records. I do not remember whether I have placed the agreement on record in court file. I do not remember whether any dealing was with the defendant company or not. I will have to check the office record for the same. It is wrong to suggest that there was no such agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant company. I do not remember the name and designation of the person with which the agreement took place as our sales and operation looks after that. It is wrong to suggest that I have no knowledge the CS no. 1584/18 Mudita Express Cargo pvt Otd. Vs. M/s Smartbox 9/13 regarding the contents of the affidavit. It is wrong to suggest that I have no knowledge regarding the billings. I do not remember the exact date when the order took place but it took place between early January, 2018 to March, 2018. It is wrong to suggest that no order was placed by Smartbox Ecommerce Solutions Pvt Ltd. company to plaintiff company. It is correct that no documents place on record in this case regarding orders placed by the defendant to the plaintiff company to show that order was given or not except bills and ledger. The bills were sent to the defendant company through field boys and most of the times they bring back the receiving from the companies. Vol. I have to verify and check from the company record for the same. It is correct that the bills exhibit from PW1/6 to PW1/13 does not have any receiving or sign of the defendant company/ Directors. It is wrong to suggest that the bills exhibited PW1/6 to PW1/13 are false and the defendant are not liable to pay the same. There was no cash dealing between the defendant and the plaintiff company. It is correct that we did not deal except the deal in the present case with the defendant company. The bills contain all the details regarding the cargo services provided by the plaintiff to the defendant company. The credit control team used to call and mails to the defendant company regarding the outstanding payment of the bills. I do not CS no. 1584/18 Mudita Express Cargo pvt Otd. Vs. M/s Smartbox 10/13 have any knowledge whether I have placed any copy of emails in the present case. It is wrong to suggest that the plaintiff company did not send any mails to the defendant company regarding to outstanding payment. It is wrong to suggest that there is no liability regarding outstanding payment upon the defendant company towards the plaintiff company. It is correct that no proof and documents is on record in the case to show that whether this luggage was booked by the defendant company or that luggage were delivered to different destination according to plaintiff bills exhibit PW1/6 to PW1/16. Vol. The bills have docket numbers which we give to the defendant, when the luggage was booked. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
13. The abovesaid testimony of PW1 shows that he has no personal knowledge of the matter and he was deposing on the basis of record available with the company and during his cross examination he various times has referred that he has to check the record of plaintiff company but never deposed again after checking such record. The plaintiff has raised invoices Ex.PW1/6 to Ex.PW1/13 for the cargo and logistic services but none of the bill has signature of the defendant or any of his agent with respect to the CS no. 1584/18 Mudita Express Cargo pvt Otd. Vs. M/s Smartbox 11/13 facts that the goods were taken from a particular destination and were supplied to another destination neither the address has been mentioned from where goods were taken and where the goods were delivered by the plaintiff company with respect to the abovesaid bills. The defendants have disputed the invoices in question and the documents which has been filed were in the possession of the plaintiff and no document has been filed by the plaintiff which shows that the plaintiff supplied the goods or logistic of the defendants per invoices. The ledger account statement Ex.PW1/5 and Ex.PW1/6 to Ex.PW1/13 are the documents prepared by the plaintiff. Plaintiff has not filed any written agreement and submitted that it was oral but even the emails exchanged between the parties has not been filed by the plaintiff to show that ever the services with respect to the invoices in question were availed by the defendants though the PW1 during cross examination has mentioned that "it is wrong to suggest that the plaintiff company did not send any mails to the defendant company regarding the outstanding payment". The plaintiff has not filed any document or the proof to show that the luggage of the defendant company was delivered to the different destination by the plaintiff, even the plaintiff has not filed the details how and in which manner the luggage was delivered to the different destination in terms of invoices. The burden of proof is on plaintiff to prove his case but plaintiff has failed to discharged the burden of proof. Therefore, the CS no. 1584/18 Mudita Express Cargo pvt Otd. Vs. M/s Smartbox 12/13 plaintiff has failed to discharge the onus of issue no. 1 and the issue is decided against the plaintiff and issue no. 4 is decided in favour of the defendants.
Issue no. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the pendente lite and future interest against the defendant @ 24% per annum? OPP
14. As the first issue has been decided against the plaintiff therefore the second issue is also decided against the plaintiff.
Issue no. 3. Whether the plaintiff has not assigned work properly and caused damaged to the consignment of the defendant? OPD
15. The onus to prove the said issue is on defendant and the DW1 during cross examination has deposed that "It is incorrect to suggest that all parcels/consignments were delivered by the plaintiff. Vol. There are many consignments/parcels were lost and few were delivered. I further state that 6070% parcels/consignments were lost. I do not remember whether the plaintiff raised invoices regarding the loggistic services. There are several bills are available on our mail which I have to check" but the DW1 has not filed any detail of the consignments which was damaged or regarding which the loss was caused by the plaintiff therefore the defendant has failed CS no. 1584/18 Mudita Express Cargo pvt Otd. Vs. M/s Smartbox 13/13 to discharge the present issue and the issue is decided against the defendants Issue no. 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the cost of proceedings?OPP
16. As issue no. 1 and 2 are decided against the plaintiff therefore the issue no. 5 is also decided against the plaintiff.
Relief.
17. In view of the discussion above, the suit of plaintiff is dismissed. After preparation of the decreesheet of dismissal by the Reader, file be consigned to record room after due compliance as per law.
Announced in open Court (SUDHIR KUMAR SIROHI) today on 03.10.2019 Administrative Civil Judge South East/ Saket Courts/Delhi Digitally signed by SUDHIR SUDHIR KUMAR KUMAR SIROHI SIROHI Date:
2019.10.04 15:10:21 +0530 CS no. 1584/18 Mudita Express Cargo pvt Otd. Vs. M/s Smartbox