Delhi District Court
National Insurance Co. Ltd vs M/S Gati Limited on 30 January, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF MS. POONAM CHAUDHARY, ADJ03,
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, NEW DELHI.
Suit No. 312/2012
Unique Identification No: 02406C0147432011
In the matter of :
National Insurance Co. Ltd.
Divisional Office No. XVII, 12,
Community Centre, East of Kailash,
New Delhi110065
M/s HCL Info Systems Ltd.
Registered Office:
806808, Sidharth Enclave,
Nehru Place, New Delhi 110010 ...Plaintiffs
Versus.
M/s Gati Limited
B 4, Ashok Bhavan,
93, Nehru Place, New Delhi
Also at:
M/s Gati Limited
Registered Office: 17293
M G Road, Secundrabad 500 003 ... Defendant
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 04.07.2011
DATE OF RESERVING FOR JUDGMENT/ORDER : 23.01.2014
DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.01.2014
J U D G E M E N T
1. Plaintiff has filed the present suit for recovery under order 37 CPC against the defendant for recovery of Rs. 4,60,080/ (Rupees Four Lakh Sixty Thousand Eighty Only) with pendentlite and future interest @ 12 % per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization.
22. The averments made are that the plaintiff is a public sector company carrying on business of general insurance having its registered office at 3, Middleton Street, Kolkotta 700071 & one divisional Office at XVII, 12 Community Centre, East of Kailash, New Delhi 110065, and is the insurer of the goods in dispute. It is also alleged that the plaintiff No. 2 is the insured of plaintiff No. 1 and has subrogated its rights and remedies in the present suit in favour of the plaintiff No.1 vide letter of Subrogation and Special Power of Attorney (SPA).
3. It is further stated that defendant is a common carrier to whom the suit goods were entrusted by the plaintiff No.2 for carriage and in whose custody the said goods were reported to be damaged due to their carelessness and mishandling. It is also alleged that defendant accepted the quantum of damages and extended a damage certificate.
4. It is further alleged that plaintiff No.2 had taken a Marine Policy No. 351700/21/09/4400000093 from the plaintiff No.1 to cover the risks of the dispatched goods. It is further stated that plaintiff No. 2 after insuring their goods with plaintiff No.1 had entrusted the same to defendant for carriage duly packed in wooden boxes for dispatch from Pondicherry to Sri Nagar vide Invoice No. 0000029459 dated 22.09.2009. It is further alleged that the defendant accepted the invoice value of said goods loaded in their vehicle and dispatched vide way Bill no. 7224170672241708 dated 22.09.2009.
5. It is also averred that goods were damaged during transit due to negligence and manhandling of goods by defendant and on receipt of goods at Jammu, 38 cartons/ boxes were completely damaged. The consignee thus refused to accept the damaged 3 goods.
6. It is further stated that plaintiff No. 2 informed the plaintiff No. 1 about the accident and asked to arrange for surveyor for assessment of loss. The surveyor of insurance company inspected the damaged goods and found that 38 boxes/packages being carried in Lorry bearing No. HR 38 K 9107, met with an accident enroute from Ponducherry to Delhi near village Malanvasa Distt. Ujjain and fell in the roadside ditch, full of water. After retrieving the lorry all the consignments were brought to the warehouse of transporters. The Surveyor found that the contents of all 10 no.s consignment in damaged conditions. The outer and inner contents of all the boxes was in badly mutilated condition Thereafter, the plaintiffs Surveyor visited the transporters warehouse on 03.12.09 with computer hardware engineer for assessing the damage and found most of the items were non functional.
7. It is also stated that the defendant had accepted the damage of suit goods and gave a damage certificate No. 142025 dated 02.11.2009. It is further stated that the plaintiff No.2 thereafter served a loss notice dated 30.09.2009 on the defendant under section 10 of the Carriers Act which was duly acknowledged by the defendant.
8. It is also alleged that Consignment was insured by the plaintiff No.1 in the name of the plaintiff No. 2 under the Marine Policy No. 351700/21/09/4400000093. The policy was issued by the plaintiff No. 1 through its Divisional Office at XVII, 12 Community Centre, East of Kailash, New Delhi.
9. It is further averred that as defendant failed to settle and 4 compensate the plaintiff No. 2 in terms of their claim, plaintiff No. 2 filed their claim with the plaintiff No.1 being the insurer. It is also averred that Plaintiff No. 1 after considering the surveyor's report settled the claims and paid full and final payment of Rs. 4,60,080/ after adjusting the amount of Rs. 1,07,920 as salvage value of damaged goods.
10. It is further stated that after settlement of the claim and receiving full and final payment of Rs. 4,60,080/ from the plaintiff No. 1, the Plaintiff No.2 executed a letter of Subrogation and Special Power of Attorney in favour of plaintiff No.1, authorizing all their rights and remedies in the claim, and further directed plaintiff No.1 to recover the same from the defendant being a defaulting carriers.
11. It is further stated that as a result of execution of above mentioned documents, the plaintiff No.1 became entitled to recover amount from the defendant. However, the plaintiff No. 2 has also been made a proforma plaintiff, though they have authorized to the plaintiff No.1 to institute the present suit on their behalf. It is submitted that even otherwise, the plaintiff No.1 upon making the payment of said amount to the insured/ plaintiff No.2 gets a right under the statute to claim reimbursement of Rs. 4,60,080/ from the defendant.
12. It is further contended that plaintiff No.1 approached the defendant several times for settlement of claim but defendant did not do so, hence, the plaintiff filed the present suit.
13. The defendant on being served with the summons under order 37 CPC filed appearance and thereafter, on being served with the summons of judgment filed leave to defend.
14. In the leave to defend application which is under consideration 5 vide this order. It was alleged that the suit is based on false averments. It was further stated that defendant never acknowledged the alleged liability. It was also alleged that no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court. It was further submitted that there are several triable issues which can be decided only after leave to defend is granted to the defendant as defendant has substantial defence to raise.
15. It was also alleged that the suit is beyond the purview of provisions of Order 37 CPC as it is not based on any bill of exchange, hundi, Promissory Note, written contract or guarantee.
16. It was further alleged that suit has not been filed by a dully authorized person and Sh. Sylvester Kully is neither authorized nor empowered to file the present suit. It was further stated that plaintiff has not placed on record the original insurance policy on the basis of which the plaintiff claims to recover the suit amount. It was further stated that no liability could be fastened on the defendant when admittedly the consignment was not damaged on account of any negligence on the part of the defendant or its employee.
17. It was also stated that survey report reveals that the same had been made without any basis and also does not state the basis of the computation of damages. It was also submitted that plaintiff had falsely averred that damage certificate was given by the defendant. It was alleged that damage certificate is just an observation note and does not constitute any admission of liability by defendant. It was also alleged that no documents has been filed by the plaintiff No.1 to show that it had made payment to plaintiff No. 2.
618. It was also alleged that the claim of the plaintiff is based on the Carriers Act 1865 which has been repealed and replaced by "The Carriage By Road Act 2007" as such the defendant is entitled to leave to defend.
19. It was also stated that the letter of subrogation relied upon by the plaintiff is a defective documents and no right can be subrogated vide said letter.
20. It was also alleged that no part of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court as the consignment was booked from Pondicherry to Srinagar, the accident occurred in Madhya Pradesh. The alleged survey was conducted at Gurgaon, Haryana. The letter of subrogation was executed at Noida as such no cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of this court and defendant is entitled to leave to defend. It was prayed that plaintiff be granted unconditional leave to defend.
21. Reply was filed by the plaintiff taking preliminary objections that it is an abuse of process of law. It was further alleged that Section 20 of the CPC confers jurisdiction on Courts of Noida, Madhya Pradesh and Delhi as goods in question were entrusted to defendant at Noida for carriage. The defendant carries on its business in Noida. The damages to the goods was reported in Madhya Pradesh and the defendant also has an office in Madhya Pradesh, as such the courts of Madhya Pradesh also have jurisdiction. It was also alleged that the goods were insured for carriage in Delhi. The claim of insured was settled at Delhi by the plaintiff No. 1. The letter of Subrogation and SPA assigning the rights of plaintiff No.2 in favour of plaintiff No.1, were executed in Delhi and also registered at Delhi. Moreover, the defendant carries on 7 business at Delhi as such the Delhi Courts also have jurisdiction to try the Suit at Delhi. It was also alleged that the present suit is maintainable under order 37 CPC as it is covered under the liquidated damages and in this regard reliance was placed upon AIR 1990 Delhi 278.
22. It was further alleged that as per Section 9 for Carriers Act, there was no need for plaintiff to prove negligence of the carrier for loss or damage as held in AIR 2000 SC 1461 title "Patel Roadways Vs. Birla Yamaha". In the reply on merits all the averrments were controverted and denied. It was further alleged that the application was liable to be dismissed.
23.I have heard the Ld. Counsels for parties and perused the record.
24.As the case is governed by provisions of Order 37 Rule 3 (5) CPC, the same is extracted below :
"(5) The defendant may, at any time within ten days from the service of such summons for judgment, by affidavit or otherwise disclosing such facts as may be deemed sufficient to entitle him to defend, apply on such summons for leave to defend such suit, and leave to defend may be granted to him unconditionally or upon such terms as may appear to the Court or Judge to be just:
Provided that leave to defend shall not be refused unless the Court is satisfied that the defence intended to be put up by the defendant is frivolous or vexatious."
25. Thus, in view of the above provisions, the court has discretion to grant leave and the discretion is to be exercised on sound judicial principles. The principles to be followed for grant of leave to defend have been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in decision reported in case titled as Michales Enc. & Mfg.
8Vs. Bank Equipment Corporation, AIR 1977 SC 577, and are as follows: "(a) If the defendant satisfies the Court that he has a good defence to the claim on merits, the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend.
(b) If the defendant raises a triable issue indicating that he has a fair or bona fide or reasonable defence, although not a possibly good defence, the defendant is entitled to unconditional leave to defend.
(c) If the defendant discloses such facts as may be deemed sufficient to entitle him to defend, that is, if the affidavit discloses that at the trial he may be able to establish a defence to the plaintiff 's claim, the Court may impose conditions at the time of granting leave to defend the conditions being as to time of trial or made of trial but not as to payment into Court or furnishing security.
(d) If the defendant has no defence, or if the defence is sham or illusory or practically moonshine, the defendant is not entitled to leave defend.
(e) If the defendant has no defence or the defence is illusory or sham or practically moonshine, the Court may show mercy to the defendant by enabling him to try to prove a defence but at the same time protect the plaintiff imposing the condition that the amount claims should be paid into Court or otherwise secured."
26. Thus, the leave to defend may be granted unconditionally or upon such terms as may appear to the court to be just, provided the court is satisfied that the fact disclosed by the defendant do indicate that he has a substantial defence to raise and the defence intended to be put up by the defendant is not frivolous 9 or vexatious.
27. The first contention of Ld. Counsel for defendant is that this court does not have the territorial jurisdiction to try the suit as consignment in question was booked from Poundicherry to be delivered at Srinagar, the consignment was damaged at Madhya Pradesh, the survey was conducted at Gurgaon Haryana as such no part of cause of action arose in Delhi. It was also alleged that the letter of subrogation was a defective document. In support of his contention Ld. Counsel for defendant placed reliance upon judgment titled as "The New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Economic Transport Organization & Ors" wherein it has been held that "unless and until whole or part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the principal office, a suit cannot be filed against a corporation in the Courts situated at its principal office and the suit has necessarily to be filed in the Court within whose jurisdiction the branch office is situated and where the whole or part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of the branch office. Since no part of cause of action arose at Delhi, merely there was an office of the respondent No. 1 at Delhi will not give the courts have territorial jurisdiction".
28. On the other hand, the contention of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff is that the suit goods were insured in Delhi. The claim of insured was settled at Delhi. Moreover the letter of subrogation was executed at Delhi. The defendant carries on business at Delhi, thus, this court has territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. In support of said contentions, reliance was placed upon M/s Patel Roadways Ltd. Vs. Manali Petrochemical Ltd., decided by Madras High Court dated 23.07.2010 wherein "it was held that once a letter of subrogation executed in Madras, Madras Courts 10 have jurisdiction to try the suit". In the said judgment reliance was placed upon Ravichandran Transports, Mettur Dam, Salem Dist. V. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2000) 2 M L J 318: (2000) I C. T. C 748, wherein it was held that " the suit is based on letter of subrogation executed by the insurer in favour of the insurance company, such a letter executed in Madras and notarised by notary public, the Court in madras has jurisdiction to entertain the suit as part of cause of action arises at Madras......"
29. A suit falling under Section 20 CPC thus may be instituted in a Court with whose jurisdiction the defendant resides, or carries on business, or works for gain or where cause of action wholly or in part arises. Thus under clause (a) to (c) of Section 20 plaintiff has choice of forum and cannot be compelled to go to the place of residence of defendant and can file a suit where the cause of action arises. The defendant can save itself only by exclusion clause.
30. Section 20 CPC covers those case not falling within Section 15 to Section 19 CPC. Thus, a suit falling under section 20 CPC may be instituted in a court within whose jurisdiction the defendant resides/carries on business or works for gain or cause of action arises wholly or partly. Section 20 of CPC is as under:
"Subject to the limitations aforesaid, every suit shall be instituted in a Court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction
(a) the defendant, or each of the defendants where there are more than one, at the time of the commencement of the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain; or
(b) any of the defendants, where there are more than one, at the 11 time of the commencement of: the suit, actually and voluntarily resides, or carries on business, or personally works for gain, provided that in such case either the leave of the Court is given, or the defendants who do not reside, or carry on business, or personally work for gain, as aforesaid, acquiesce in such institution; or
(c) the cause of action, wholly or in part, arises.
(Explanation) A corporation shall be deemed to carry on business at its sole or principal office in India, or in respect of any cause of action arising at any place where it has also a subordinate office, at such place".
31. The contention of the Ld. counsel for plaintiff is that this Court has jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit as cause of action partly arose at Delhi as suit goods were insured at Delhi, claim of insured was settled and paid at Delhi and the letter of subrogation was executed at Delhi. Thus, the place where the cause of action arises wholly or partly will have the jurisdiction to try the suit. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff further submitted that the claim of plaintiff is based on the letter of subrogation executed in its favour by Plaintiff No.2, as such suit can be filed at the place where the letter of subrogation was executed. In this regard Ld. counsel for plaintiff placed reliance upon judgment 2000 AIR (Mad) 291 titled as Patel Roadways Ltd. Chennai Vs. Indo Matusushita Appliances Co. Ltd., Madras, wherein it was held that "A contract was entered into between the revision petitioner and a third party (insured) that the goods delivered at torrential rains, that the tea forming the subject - matter of the contract got damaged. Thereafter the national insurance company got itself subrogated to the rights of the 12 insured and filed the suit at Coimbatore. Admittedly, subrogation took place at Coimbatore. So the question arose whether the suit ought to have been filed at the place where the contract was entered into or at the place where the damages took place, both of them being in nilgiris district. In contra distinction it was contended that Coimbatore court had jurisdiction. The Court below has answered the same in the affirmative. In seeking to revise its order what is urged before me is that the suit in essence is one for damages caused to movable property which will fall under section 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure and therefore, notwithstanding the subrogation the Coimbatore Court will have no jurisdiction. Under Section 20
(c) if part of the cause of action arose for filing of the suit, that Court could have jurisdiction. In this case, admittedly subrogation took place at Coimbatore. It should also be noted in this connection that it will be open to the defendant - revision petitioner to contend that there is no valid subrogation in the eye of law. In such an event, even if it is found that the petitioner had caused damage, in so far as there is no valid subrogation in the eye of law, the suit is liable to be dismissed. Therefore looked at from this point of view, undoubtedly, the subrogation has a great bearing and that being a part of cause of action which has arisen in Coimbatore, I hold that the order of the apex Court below is correct. I find support for this view in a. A. Co. V. Union of India, (1959) 63 cal wn 806 : air 1959 cal 563. The case is on all fours to the one on hands because by assignment of railway receipts, the claims thereunder were transferred in favour of the insurance company and the letter of subrogation showed that the insurance company was subrogated to all the rights of the 13 consignor. Accordingly, it was held that the place where the right of subrogation took place would provide, the necessary cause of action under section 20 (c)."
32. The defendant in its rejoinder did not specifically deny that the letter of subrogation was executed in Delhi. In judgment relied upon by the defendant it was also held that suit can be filed in a court where whole or part of cause of action arises and merely because corporation has an office at a particular place will not give the said courts territorial jurisdiction unless cause of action arises wholly or partly in the jurisdiction of that place. In this case part of cause of action arose at Delhi as letter of subrogation was executed at Delhi, thus, it cannot be said that no part of cause of action arose at Delhi. I accordingly, hold that this court has jurisdiction to try the present suit, in view of Section 20 clause (c) of the CPC.
33. The next contention of Ld. Counsel for defendant is that suit is not maintainable U/o 37 CPC as it is not based on any bill of exchange, hundi, promissory Note, written contract or guarantee as required under the provision of 37 CPC. Ld. counsel for plaintiff refuted the said allegations and submitted that suit falls U/o 37 CPC as it is for recovery of liquidated damages. In this regard reliance was placed upon AIR 1990 Delhi 278 wherein it has been held as follows: "Summary ProcedureLiquidated demand Meaning of - Claim against Insurance Company Damages to cargo, estimated in percentage
- can be converted into determinable sum by arithmetical calculation - Constitutes liquidated demand -Suit for recovery of claim, under O. 27, Maintainable."
34. It is the case of the plaintiff that damage in percentage is 14 capable, by arithmetical calculations of being quantified into amount of damage actually sustained to cargo, as such it is covered under the term liquidated demand under order 37 CPC.
35.The contention of Ld. counsel for defendant, however, is that the suit is not covered under liquidated damages as alleged. Ld. Counsel for defendant, however, did not produce any precedent in support of his contentions as to what was liquidated demand within the meaning of Order 37 CPC. Thus, as the percentage of loss suffered to the goods as per the report of Surveyor is capable of being quantified into a determinable sum by arithmetical calculation, it would constitute a liquidated demand under order 37 Rule 1 2 (b) of CPC. The contentions of ld. Counsel for defendant is accordingly, rejected.
36. Ld. Counsel for defendant next contended that defendant never acknowledged the liability. It is also alleged that surveyor report reveals that it is made without any basis and lacks basis of computation of damages. It was also alleged that admittedly no liability could be fastened upon defendant when consignment was not damaged on account of negligence of its employees. It was also alleged that damage certificate given by defendant is just an observation note and does not amount to admission of liability of claim of the plaintiff. It was also submitted on behalf of defendant that there was no evidence adduced by the plaintiff in respect of negligence of defendant and in handling the cargo. It was further stated by Ld. counsel for defendant that survey reports was yet to be proved by examining the persons who prepared the same and unless the 15 persons who prepared the survey report cannot be relied upon. It was further contended that documents have to be proved by admissible evidence. It was further submitted that thus the quantum of damages as claimed by the plaintiff cannot be considered as proved as the surveryor has not been examined. It was submitted that contention raise bonafide defence and can only be considered after evidence is lead by the parties as such defendant is entitled to leave to defend.
37.On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has submitted that defendant had admitted its liability and accepted the damage to suit goods in their custody and gave a damage certificate no. 142025 dated 02.11.2009 thereby admitting the fact that goods of the assured were damaged while in their custody.
38. In my view, the contention raised on behalf of defendant that there is no admission of liability of the claim of plaintiff or that alleged surveyor report is without any basis, is without any merit as defendant had issued a damage certificate dated 02.11.2009 thereby acknowledging the damage to goods in their custody and the invoice value of the goods and reported claim amount.
39.Thus, I am of the view that as defendant had issued damage certificate, an inference arises that it was issued towards liability of claim of the plaintiff no.2 thus, the contentions of defendant that it had not admitted liability, is without merits. I am of the view that plaintiff no.2 was entitled to claim the amount of actual damage sustained to the goods in the accident of lorry.
40. Moreover, Section 124 of the Indian Contract Act 1872, defines contract of Indemnity as follows:
16"A contract by which one party promises to save the other from loss caused to him by the conduct of the promiser himself, or by the conduct of any other person, is called a "Contract of indemnity".
41.Section 140 of Indian Contract Act, 1872 relates to right of surety of payment or performance. The assignment of rights and liabilities of the assured in favour of insurer, is implied in the contract of indemnity, known as subrogation. Assignment refers to a transfer of a right by an instrument for consideration. In the case of absolute assignment nothing remains with the assignor with regard to subject matter of assignment.
42.In the present case, as there is absolute assignment vide the subrogation letter executed by assured in favour of insurer and nothing remains with the assignor/assured with regard to the subject matter of the assignment.
43. Thus, as plaintiff No. 2 vide the deed of subrogation, conferred upon plaintiff no.1 the same rights that it had in consequence of any loss or damage and insurance company/ plaintiff became entitled to recovery of compensation which it had paid to assured in pursuance of the insurance policy entered into between the assured and the insurance company.
44. It was an admitted fact that suit goods were entrusted by plaintiff No. 2 to defendant vide delivery challan No.516241934. As per the delivery challan there were 38 boxes entrusted to it by plaintiff no.2 for transportation. The defendant had issued a damage certificate with the observation: 38 C/B damage due to accident of vehicle bearing No. HR 38 K 9107 near Ujjain. The reported claim amount was stated to be Rs. 5,68,000/. It is contended on behalf of plaintiff that defendant had accepted 17 the invoice value of goods loaded in the vehicle and dispatched vide way bill/ docket no. 7224170672241708 dated 22.09.2009. Thus, the fact that plaintiff No. 2 had entrusted the goods to defendant, a carrier for transportation from Pounducherry to Sri Nagar after insuring the goods with plaintiff No. 1 is an admitted fact.
45. It is further contended on behalf of defendant that the claim of plaintiff is based on the Carrier Act 1865, which has been repealed and replaced by "The Carriage By Road Act 2007" as such defendant is entitled to leave to defend.
46. The claim of plaintiff is based on the Carriers Act 1865. The main attribute of a carrier is to transport for hire property from one place to other. The liability of a common carrier is that of an insurer. It therefore, follows that notwithstanding the fact that there is no negligence on the part of a common carrier, he is liable to compensate the owner of goods for the loss of goods that occurred during transit belonging to the carrier. The rights and liabilities of carrier are governed by the Carrier Act. Section 9 of the Carriers Act 1865 relieves the plaintiff from the burden of proving the loss or damage for non delivery was owing to any negligence of criminal act. Thus, in a suit for damages against the common carrier, plaintiff need not prove negligence. All that the plaintiff has to prove is factum of loss by way of short delivery or non delivery. There is a presumption of negligence on the part of the defendant though it is a rebuttable presumption and it is for the defendant common carrier to rebut such presumption. Thus, loss or damage to goods is prima facie proof of negligence under Section 9 and the burden to prove the absence of negligence is upon the common carrier.
18Thus, in view of Section 9 the carrier would be liable to pay damage when it failed to deliver the goods to consignee in the conditions in which they were entrusted to it. The absolute liability of the carrier is subject to two exceptions, one of them is the special contract that the carrier may enter with the customer and the other is the act of God. Thus, in the absence of the special contract or act of God, the common carrier is liable for loss of goods. In the present case the damage certificate issued by the defendant shows that damage was due to accident of vehicle of the carrier carrying the suit goods. The damage certificate does not refer to any special contract or act of God. Thus, the negligence on part of carrier is presumed in view of section 9 of the Carriers Act.
47. The procedure prescribed in the Order 37 CPC is a step in the direction to achieve the objective of the act as it provides special procedure in cases covered under its preview. Thus, in a summary suit defendant is not entitled as a right to defend the suit, he has to apply for leave to defend and such leave has to be granted only if the affidavit filed by defendant discloses such facts as will be incumbent upon plaintiff to prove or such other fact which disclose any substantial defence.
48. I am of the view that the facts disclosed in the application for leave to defend do not disclose any substantial defence. Moreover, the contention of defendant that the Carriers Act 1865 is not applicable as it has been repealed and replaced by "The Carriage By Road Act 2007" does not stands substantiated. I accordingly, dismiss the application for leave to defend.
49. Resultantly, I pass a decree for a sum of Rs.4,60,080/ (Rs. Four Lakhs Sixty Thousand Eighty Only) in favour of the plaintiffs 19 and against the defendant with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the realization along with the cost of the suit. Decree sheet be prepared. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court (POONAM CHAUDHARY)
on 30th January, 2014 ADJ03, SAKET COURT,
NEW DELHI