Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Om Parkash Goswami vs M/S Radiant Limousine Services Pvt Ltd on 9 May, 2014

                           -:1 :-


     IN THE COURT OF SH. NIPUN AWASTHI,
CIVIL JUDGE­04(W), TIS HAZARI COURTS DELHI.


 CS No.228/2014


    Om Parkash Goswami
    Prop.  M/s Om Parkash Goswami
    Having its Regd. Office at 
    36­A, Vikas Kunj,
    Vikas Nagar, Near Hanuman Mandir
    Uttam Nagar 
    New Delhi                             ..... Plaintiff

               Versus


    M/s Radiant Limousine Services Pvt Ltd.
    11/3, Firni Road,
    Near IGI Airport,
    Samalka, New Delhi ­110037          ..... Defendant


  SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF RS.1,06,768/­(RUPEES 
  ONE LAKH SIX THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED 
                  SIXTY EIGHT  ONLY)


Date of Institution                 : 20.10.2012
Date of reserving judgment : 07.05.2014
Date of Decision                    : 09.05.2014
                                   -:2 :-




Concise Statement of the case



1.

The plaintiff herein, provided a car on hire to the defendant for which the defendant did not pay. The car was provided from December 2011 to March 2012. For the said period the defendant was liable to pay rent which accrued to be Rs.1,06,786/­ (Rupee One Lakh Six thousand seven hundred and sixty eight only) . Hence, by the present suit the plaintiff prays that a money decree be passed in his favour and against the defendant for the said sum alongwith interest thereon @ 18% p.a. till the date of its realization.

1.1 The defendant has admitted that a car­rental agreement was executed between the parties to this suit on 01.02.2012 and the car provided by the plaintiff was attached with a company named EDCIL India Ltd., on monthly basis w.e.f. February 2012. -:3 :- 1.2 However, the plaintiff, in breach of the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant directly approached the said EDCIL India Ltd and received monies from them towards the car rental. Hence, the defendant is not liable to pay any money to the plaintiff.

2. Pleadings were completed on 14.05.2013 and the following issues were framed on 04.06.2013 :­

(i) Whether this court has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit ? OPD

(ii) Whether the suit is bad for non­joinder of EDCIL India Ltd as necessary party? OPD

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree in sum of Rs.1,06,786/­? OPP

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest, if yes, then at what rate? OPP, and

(v) Relief -:4 :-

3. The plaintiff failed to lead evidence in support of his claim and pleadings as his opportunity to lead evidence was closed vide order dated 20.11.2013. Hence, he failed to prove his case. The defendant chose not to lead evidence.

Thus, in absence of any evidence the plaintiff failed to prove his right to recover money and therefore the present suit is dismissed. File be consigned to Record Room.

Announced in open court th Today, this 09 May , 2014 (Nipun Awasthi) Civil Judge­04 (West) THC, Delhi/ 09.05.2014