Delhi District Court
Narayan Goenka (Proprietor) vs Skypak Service Specialists Limited on 13 May, 2013
IN THE COURT OF MS. RUCHI AGGARWAL ASRANI,
CIVIL JUDGE, CENTRAL-02, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Unique ID No. 02401C0032662006
Suit No. 110/2006
Narayan Goenka (Proprietor)
M/s. Fighter Global Services,
94-A, Ground Floor,
Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110007. ....PLAINTIFF
VS.
Skypak Service Specialists Limited,
Regd. Office at Skypak House, Off. M. Vissanji Road,
Marol, Andheri (East) Mumbai-400059.
And:
B-6/4, Comm. Centre,
Opposite Dear Park,
Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi-110029.
And:
202, Arjun Nagar,
New Delhi-110029. ....DEFENDANT
Date of institution: 16.01.2006
Date of reserving of judgment: 02.05.2013
Date of pronouncement of judgment: 13.05.2013
Decision: Decreed
Suit No. 110/2006 Page 1 of 6
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
The plaintiff has filed the present suit against the
defendant for recovery of Rs. 20,100/-.
Plaintiff's version:-
2 It is stated in the plaint that plaintiff is a
proprietorship firm having its registered office at 94-A Kamla
Nagar, Delhi-110007 and Mr. Narayan Goenka is the proprietor
of the firm.
3 It is further stated in the plaint that defendant is
operating the business of Domestic and International Couriers,
freight and other value added services.
4 It is the case of the plaintiff that it had submitted an
Application Form to the office of the defendant for carrying out
the business of Domestic and International Courier Freight as
franchisee along with a bank draft no. 439316 drawn on Bank of
Rajasthan, Naraina, Delhi for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- dated
17.01.2003.
5 It is further its case that the defendant company had Suit No. 110/2006 Page 2 of 6 accepted the application form and draft mentioned above and sent a Franchisee Agreement dated 06.02.2003 duly signed by the authorised signatory/ director of the defendant company at Mumbai.
6 It is further averred by the plaintiff that he had also paid a sum of Rs. 100/- to the defendant vide Receipt No. 1609 dated 11.02.2003 for the Invoice Book containing 100 invoices from 000047501 to 000047600. It is also averred by the plaintiff that due to some objections to the terms of Agreement, the plaintiff did not pursue the matter and requested for refund of security amount and issued a letter dated 21.11.2003 to the defendant for the refund of the security.
7 It is stated that the plaintiff again issued a letter to Mr. Kishore Peter (Accounts Department) to the defendant's company for refund of the security of Rs. 20,000/-.
8 It is further stated that the defendant neither replied to the notice nor refunded the due amount and therefore, the plaintiff issued another letter dated 16.02.2004 to the defendant which was duly received by the defendant company at its Delhi branch on 16.02.2004 itself. Despite this, the defendant did not pay the due amount and therefore, the present suit has been Suit No. 110/2006 Page 3 of 6 filed.
9 It is pertinent to mention that initially, the present suit was filed under Order 37 CPC and the defendant was duly served with the summons for appearance and he also appeared. However, on request of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff, the suit was treated as an ordinary suit vide order dated 01.05.2007. Thereafter, the defendant refused to file its written statement and stopped appearing and therefore, it was proceeded exparte vide order dated 07.06.2011.
10 In order to prove its case, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 and he reiterated the facts mentioned in the suit and placed reliance on the following documents:-
i) The copy of the application form and the demand draft are Ex. PW-1/A and Ex. PW-1/B respectively.
ii) The Franchisee Agreement dated 06.02.2003 is Ex. PW-1/C.
iii) The receipt No. 1609 dated 11.02.2003 is Ex. PW-1/D.
iv) The letter dated 21.11.2003 is Ex. PW-1/E.
(v) The letter sent to Mr. Kishore Peter at Mumbai for refund of the security of Rs. 20,000/-, is Ex. PW-1/F.
(vi) The letter dated 16.02.2004 and the original receipt of Suit No. 110/2006 Page 4 of 6 courier dated 16.02.2004 are Ex. Pw-1/G and Ex. PW-1/H respectively.
11 Since, the defendant has failed to defend its case, the documents and testimony of the plaintiff has remained uncontroverted, unrebutted and unchallenged and therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve his testimony. From the documents, it is clear that the defendant had accepted the application form of the plaintiff for carrying out the business of domestic and international couriers, freight and other value- added services, however, due to some objections, the plaintiff did not pursue the matter and requested for refund of the security amount, but the defendant has failed to refund the security amount of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 100/- for the invoice book despite repeated requests and demands. The plaintiff has been able to discharge its onus. The defendant is liable to pay the suit amount. The plaintiff has also claimed pendentelite and future interest @ 30 % per annum but, to my mind, such an exorbitant interest cannot be awarded. Therefore, pendentilite and future interest @ 8 % p.a. till its realisation is awarded in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant.
12 In view of the above discussion, the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of the suit amount. Accordingly, the suit is decreed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant for a Suit No. 110/2006 Page 5 of 6 sum of Rs.20,100/- alongwith pendentelite and future interest @ 8 % p.a. till its realisation. Costs of the suit are also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room after due compliance.
Announced in the open court today on this 13th day of May, 2013.
(Ruchi Aggarwal Asrani) Civil Judge, Central-02 Tis Hazari Courts,Delhi.
Suit No. 110/2006 Page 6 of 6