Delhi District Court
Sh. Shiv Narain Singh vs Mahashey Chunni Lal Charitable Trust on 22 December, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SH. RAKESH KUMAR : ADJ03 (C) : DELHI
Suit No.768/08
Unique Case ID No.02401C0508652007
Sh. Shiv Narain Singh, S/o Sh. Yogender Singh,
Sole Proprietor & Working under the name and
Style of Shiv Confidence Dental Laboratory,
36B, New Sahib Pura, Tilak Nagar,
New Delhi - 110018. .....Plaintiff.
Versus
1. Mahashey Chunni Lal Charitable Trust,
Mata Chanan Devi Hospital,
Janak Puri, New Delhi - 110058.
2. Medical Superintendent,
Mata Chanan Devi Hospital,
Janak Puri, New Delhi - 110058. .....Defendants.
Date of arguments. : 22.12.2011.
Date of judgment. : 22.12.2011.
J U D G M E N T
1. The present suit for recovery of money has been filed by the aforesaid plaintiff against the abovenamed defendants interalia praying that a decree for a sum of Rs.6,00,000/ with cost of the suit and future interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization may be passed in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants.
Shiv Narain Singh Vs. Mahashay Chuni Lal Charitable Trust & Anr. Page No.1 of pages 20
2. As per plaint, plaintiff is the sole proprietor and carrying on the business under the name and style of "Shiv Confidence Dental Laboratory" of fabricating of various types of dentures according to the requirements of the hospital and dental surgeons for their patients. The defendant is a registered Trust which besides other activities runs Mata Chanan Devi Hospital, Janakpuri, New Delhi. The plaintiff has been doing the business with the defendant for the past seven years (from Aug., 1999 till March, 2006) and was fabricating and supplying dentures to the said hospital for their out door patients as per the requirements and specifications given to him by the Dental Deptts. of the Hospital. He carried on the work of fabrication to the entire satisfaction of the patients and the concerned doctors and staff of the hospital and there was no complaint from any quarter. The plaintiff was having best working and business relations with the hospital and all the bills of the plaintiff were duly cleared and paid by the hospital till 29.12.2002 by cheques. Due to some administrative problem in the defendant hospital (Which had no concern with the plaintiffs at all,) payment of the bills of the plaintiff from Jan., 2003 onwards were kept pending but the plaintiff was asked by Dr. Gurkeerat Singh, Head of the Dental Deptt. of the Hospital to continue doing job works for the Hospital in the interest of patients Shiv Narain Singh Vs. Mahashay Chuni Lal Charitable Trust & Anr. Page No.2 of pages 20 with a solemn assurance that all his bills would be cleared as soon as some solution of the alleged administrative problem of the Hospital was worked out. The plaintiff had no reason to doubt or disbelieve the assurance given by the concerned competent authority of the status of Head of the Deptt. and therefore, continued to carry out job works of the Hospital as usual in good faith and trust till March, 2006 and thought that his bills will be cleared as per solemn assurance given to him by the Head of Dental Deptt. It is further averred that when the amount of the pending bills of the plaintiffs started accumulating and no payments were being made by the Hospital, the plaintiffs made a strong plea to the Head of the Dental Deptt. in Aug., 2003 reminding him his verbal assurance and requesting him to release their payments. In response, Dr. Gurkreet Singh, Head of the Dental Deptt. informed the plaintiff that his bills for the period from Jan., 2003 to July, 2003 had already been verified and duly passed by him but the payment thereof was held up under same orders of the Medical Superintendent of the Hospital Dr. Virender Sobti and advised the plaintiffs to make a written request to the Medical Superintendent for early payment of his pending bills. The plaintiff accordingly wrote a letter to the Medical Superintendent on 08.08.2003 requesting him to release payment of his pending bills upto July, 2003. The letter was Shiv Narain Singh Vs. Mahashay Chuni Lal Charitable Trust & Anr. Page No.3 of pages 20 duly recommended and forwarded by Dr. Gurkeerat Singh, Head of the Dental Deptt. to the Medical Superintendent for doing the needful and a photocopy of the same was given to the plaintiff. The said letter dated 08.08.2003 by the plaintiff addressed to the Medical Superintendent and duly recommended by the Head of the Dental Deptt. has never been controverted by the Medical Superintendent nor even the amount of the bills of the plaintiff duly verified, processed and passed for payment by the Head of the Dental Deptt. but the amount of the bills have not been paid to the plaintiffs so far. Similarly, the defendants have never disputed about the supply made by the plaintiff and they have been requiring the supplies as would be evident from the records of the Hospital. The plaintiff has been sending reminder about the payment from time to time to the Medical Superintendent through the Head of the Dental Deptt. for release of the payment of his pending bills but to no avail. It is also averred that due to inordinate, unending and unjustified delay of the payments of the plaintiff by the Hospital which was causing serious difficulties and hardships to the plaintiff to meet his own financial obligations and liabilities in the Market, was forced to suspend the supply and service to the Hospital from 08.03.2006. Ever since March, 2006, the plaintiff has been frequently visiting the Hospital requesting and begging of all Shiv Narain Singh Vs. Mahashay Chuni Lal Charitable Trust & Anr. Page No.4 of pages 20 concerned for early release of his hard earned, genuine and legitimate dues which are dishonestly by being held up by the Hospital only at the motivated distance of the Medical Superintendent without any valid reason or justification. The plaintiff entities did not in any favourable results has come out so far. In the meantime, the plaintiff even met Sh. Mahashay Dharam Palji of the Mahashay Chunni Lal Charitable Trust, the defendant herein which runs Mata Chanan Devi Hospital and Sh. Sushil Kumar, Chief of the Finance Committee of the Hospital, seeking their help. Their immediate response was quite encouraging and helpful but the Medical Supdt. Dr. Virender Sobti, wrongly and falsely, mislead them on totally false and baseless grounds prompting both of them to refuse any help. The plaintiff, failing in all his efforts to get any favourable result, sent a letter dated 05.06.2006 by registered Speed Post, to the Medical Superintendent requesting him again to release long pending dues of the plaintiffs and giving him details of the pending bills amounting to Rs.4,65,600/. The said letter of the plaintiff was also never responded by the Medical Superintendent/Hospital. Receiving no reply of their letter dated 05.06.2006, the plaintiffs sent a reminder dated 06.07.2006 to the Medical Superintendent by registered Post appealing to him to release their pending dues. To an utter shock to Shiv Narain Singh Vs. Mahashay Chuni Lal Charitable Trust & Anr. Page No.5 of pages 20 the plaintiff, the Administrative Officers of the Hospital in its first ever and only one and first ever reply dated 17.07.2006 informed the plaintiff that there was no purchase order or proof of supply of the alleged material by the plaintiff to the hospital due to which the hospital was unable to process the bills of the plaintiffs. The said plea was absolutely wrong, false and baseless on the records of the Hospital would clearly show that the material was supplied. As a routine working arrangement and actual practice prevalent at the time when the plaintiff was doing the job works of the hospital was that the plaintiff was used to be called to the hospital by its Dental Deptt. and given the models (Specifications/measurements) of the patients to prepare dentures thereof. There was no system, procedure or practice to issue any formal work order to the plaintiff and the plaintiff was asked to prepare the dentures only on the basis of the models given to him which for all intents and purposes were considered to be the work orders. Similarly, in turn, the plaintiff used to prepare the dentures of the models given to them by the Dental Deptt. of the hospital and delivered the prepared dentures alongwith the models back to the Dental Deptt. with the bills of charges for which no receipt/receiving was ever given to the plaintiffs by the hospital. The bills of the plaintiff numbering in hundreds and covering hundreds of Shiv Narain Singh Vs. Mahashay Chuni Lal Charitable Trust & Anr. Page No.6 of pages 20 job works done by the plaintiffs were duly passed and regularly paid by the hospital from Aug., 1999 onwards only on the basis of actual procedure and practice prevalent at that time without any hitch or difficulty by cheques only. Not even in a single case the hospital ever objected to or refused payments of the plaintiffs for want of any work order and or receiving only because there was no such system or practice of issuing work orders and receipts in vogue when the plaintiff was doing job works of the hospital. All the actual and trustful facts were duly and distinctly pointed out to the Medical Superintendent, Dr. Virender Sobti by the plaintiffs vide letter dated 25.07.2006 sent by registered Speed Post in reply to the hospital letter no.1600 (Dental) MCDH3855 dated 17.07.2006 clearly refuting all the baseless and motivated contentions contained in their letter dated 17.07.2006 that the hospital was unable to process the bills of the plaintiffs for want of purchase orders or proof of supply to the hospital. The plaintiff even offered to the Hospital vide letter dated 25.07.2006 that if the hospital was unable to process the bills of the plaintiffs, the plaintiff was ready to assist the hospital to do the needful with full proof accuracy and to the entire satisfaction of the hospital. The hospital has never replied to the said letter nor responded to the offer of the plaintiff contained therein only because Shiv Narain Singh Vs. Mahashay Chuni Lal Charitable Trust & Anr. Page No.7 of pages 20 the Medical Superintendent of the Hospital very well knew that the contentions contained in their letter dated 17.07.2006 were totally baseless, false and motivated and unsustainable. From Jan., 2006 to March, 2006 all dental job works of the Dental Deptt. of the Hospital were exclusively done by the plaintiff as during the said period no Agency or laboratory other than the plaintiff was working for the Dental Deptt. The computer and other relevant record of the hospital will clearly show and irrefutably prove beyond doubt that the hospital had collected lakhs of rupees from the patients for those jobs done by the plaintiffs only and for which the hospital has not paid the bills of the plaintiff on absolutely false, baseless, motivated, dishonest, malafide, misleading, mischievous and irrelevant grounds that "the bills of the plaintiff could not be processed for want of any purchase order or proof of supply of any material to the hospital." The concerned staff and the Head of the Dental Deptt. very well know this and will vouchsafe to this as to the actual practice prevalent at that time, that no purchase orders or receiving were ever issued by them to the plaintiffs. Besides, payment by cheques made by the hospital to the plaintiffs without purchase orders and receiving during the period from Aug., 1999 to Dec., 2002 for their hundreds of bills covering hundreds of job works done by them, will irrefutably prove Shiv Narain Singh Vs. Mahashay Chuni Lal Charitable Trust & Anr. Page No.8 of pages 20 this. It is note worthy that whereas the Medical Superintendent of the Hospital withheld payments of the pending bills of the plaintiffs on some baseless and invalid grounds he did not stop his Dental Deptt. from continuing to get the job works of the hospital done by the plaintiffs without issuing any work orders or receipts as per the usual practice and without making any payment to the plaintiff of their bills from Jan., 2003 to March, 2006. The Medical Superintendent of the Hospital has no arbitrary power or legal authority to ignore, over rule, over ride or reject any justified recommendations of the Head of the Dental Deptt. being the concerned executive authority, for the works/jobs got done by him for his Department, without any legally justified and valid reasons. All bonafide commitments of the Head of the Deptt. to carry out functions of his Department are to be officially and legally honoured by the Medical Superintendent or any other hospital authority. In this case, the bills even duly passed by the Head of the Dental Deptt. for the period from Jan., 2003 to July, 2003 have not been paid to the plaintiffs under the orders of the Medical Superintendent nor bonafide subsequent commitments of the Head of the Dental Deptt. in this regard have been duly honoured by the Medical Superintendent resulting in nonpayment of the bills and dues of the plaintiffs amounting to Rs.4,65,660/. A sum of Rs.4,50,600/ is Shiv Narain Singh Vs. Mahashay Chuni Lal Charitable Trust & Anr. Page No.9 of pages 20 due to the plaintiff towards the bill from 2003 to 2006 after adjusting the amount paid by the defendant. According to the trade usage, customs and law the plaintiff is entitled to interest on the above amount at the rate of 18% per annum. A sum of Rs.2,00,000/ is being towards the interest. Total amount thus due to the plaintiff from the deptt. towards the amount of the bill and interest comes to Rs.6,56,000/ which the defendant has failed to pay inspite of many demands and service of a legal notice. The plaintiff is, however, confining his claim to Rs.5 Lakhs only. The cause of action accrued to the plaintiff and against the defendant on various dates between 2003 and 2006 when the supplies were made and again on various dates when the amount was demanded but not paid and on or about 05.02.2007 when the legal notice was served. This Court has the pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The suit has been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction and appropriate court fee has been paid.
3. Defendants contested the suit by filing their joint Written Statement and thereafter due to their non appearing they were proceeded against exparte vide order dated 05.10.2011.
4. In their joint Written Statement it is claimed that the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the same Shiv Narain Singh Vs. Mahashay Chuni Lal Charitable Trust & Anr. Page No.10 of pages 20 is based on false, frivolous and misleading averments. Suit is also liable to be dismissed due to non joinder of necessary parties. It is submitted that Mahashay Chunni Lal Charitable Trust is a registered Trust and is to be represented through its Secretary and since the Secretary of the Trust has not been impleaded as a necessary party to the present suit, therefore, the suit itself is bad for non joinder of the necessary party. Further no cause of action has at all arisen qua the defendants and further alternatively if at all any cause of action arose in the year 2003, then the suit itself is barred by limitation. Further no documentary evidence has been filed on record to show the involvement of the defendants in the purchase of dentures as mentioned by the plaintiff. Suit is also not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the bills produced on record have not been supported by any acceptance on behalf of the defendants. Suit is further not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed as the affidavit accompanying the suit is also not in accordance with the High Court rules. Moreover, the date of verification is also missing from the affidavit. Suit is also not maintainable as the verification underneath the affidavit is also not in accordance with the High Court rules and therefore, the suit is bad for non proper verification of the supporting affidavit.
Shiv Narain Singh Vs. Mahashay Chuni Lal Charitable Trust & Anr. Page No.11 of pages 20 On merits, it is claimed that Sh. Shiv Narain in his personal capacity had been providing dentures till the year 2002 and thereafter, the defendants had not received any denture from the plaintiff. This Institution being registered one has definite procedure provided. It is submitted that the tenders are called for, and thereafter, the contract is entered into and then orders are placed and on receipt of the articles, the entry in the stock in register is done. But in this case no articles were received. Had any article been received, vouchers/challans/receipts would have been issued for acceptance of delivered articles. But since no transaction is carried out nor any contract is fulfilled, therefore, the plaintiff is making false averments and as such the suit is liable to be dismissed. It is stated that the averments that the plaintiff had been doing job work of the defendants from the year 1999 in his individual capacity as Shiv Narain Singh is a matter of record. It is also submitted that he had supplied the goods till December, 2002 and thereafter stopped supplying the articles and therefore, it is wrong to say that the job work was being done by the plaintiff for the defendant in the capacity of proprietor of Shiv Confidential Dental Laboratory till March, 2006. The fabrication work in regard to the dentures is to be supplied to defendant no.1 and after the due consultation of the concerned doctor and Medical Shiv Narain Singh Vs. Mahashay Chuni Lal Charitable Trust & Anr. Page No.12 of pages 20 Superintendent they are accepted. However, as and when there was any defect in fabrication work, the same was brought to the notice of the plaintiff. The defendant no.1 had never stopped the genuine payment of the plaintiff and all the payments have been cleared through cheques after due verification of the receipt of articles and since 2003 the work has not been carried out by the plaintiff as SHIV NARAIN SINGH, Prop. of Shiv Confidential Dental Laboratory, therefore, there remains no relation between the plaintiff and the defendants. It is denied that there was any administrative problem in the defendant hospital or that Gurkeerat Singh had assured the plaintiff for continuation of the job work for the hospital or that the plaintiff had been doing the work at his instruction. It is submitted that Dr. Gurkeerat Singh has no authority to place any order on behalf of the defendants. He is only a contractual consultant doctor and cannot be given authority to place any order on behalf of the defendants and therefore, it at all any contract had taken place between Dr. Gurkeerat Singh and the plaintiff that is in his personal capacity and having no concern with the defendants and therefore, the defendants are not liable and responsible for any act of Dr. Gurkeerat Singh if at all, through denied for want of knowledge. As per the case of the plaintiff he had been supplying fabricated articles to Dr. Gurkeerat Singh Shiv Narain Singh Vs. Mahashay Chuni Lal Charitable Trust & Anr. Page No.13 of pages 20 since January, 2003 but no payment has been received by him and even then he remained silent till March, 2006 and therefore, it seems to be a false claim by the plaintiff in order to squeeze money from the defendants. No amount has ever accumulated for payment by the defendant. Allegations of verbal assurance of Dr. Gurkeerat Singh have no concern with the defendants as the said Dr. Gurkeerat Singh has not authorized to place any order on behalf of the defendants. It is denied that any bill was ever offered to be verified by the defendants, as alleged. On the other hand this fact was never brought to the notice of the defendants. No such letter dated 08.08.2003 has ever been received in the office of the defendants nor the defendants have any knowledge. It it was done by Dr. Gurkeerat Singh, it was done in his individual capacity for which the defendants are not liable and plaintiff if at all has any grievance he should filed the suit against Dr. Gurkeerath Singh and not against the defendants. There is no liability or financial obligation upon the defendants. The plaintiff never visited the office of the defendants nor produced any proof in regard to the same. It is denied that the plaintiff ever met Mahashay Dharam Palji, Chief of defendant no.1 or that any misrepresentation has been made to Mahashay Dharam Palji by Mr. Sobti. It is submitted that one letter dated 05.06.2006 was received in the office of the defendants Shiv Narain Singh Vs. Mahashay Chuni Lal Charitable Trust & Anr. Page No.14 of pages 20 but since the defendants were not at all liable to pay any amount much less the amount demanded by the plaintiff, therefore, the letter was appropriately replied. The reminder dated 06.06.2006 was duly replied for and also brought to the notice of the plaintiff that since no purchase order of the alleged articles has been placed therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled to any amount. It is submitted that the defendant no.1 is registered with the Registrar and therefore a strict procedure is adopted as explained in the letter dated 17.07.2006 sent by the Administrative Officer on behalf of the defendant no.1 and since thereafter the plaintiff has not produced on record any documentary evidence therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any amount from the defendants. It is denied that the plaintiff was ever given any order in regard to the dentures. No order has been placed with the plaintiff after December, 2002 and therefore, the defendants are not liable for any amount. It is denied that any job work of Dental Department was being done by the plaintiff w.e.f. January, 2003 to March, 2006. It is denied that Medical Superintendent of the Hospital withheld payments of the pending bills of the plaintiff, as alleged. The defendant no.2 has never recommended any bill nor any bill was submitted nor any order was placed for the preparation of dentures and therefore, the plaintiff has Shiv Narain Singh Vs. Mahashay Chuni Lal Charitable Trust & Anr. Page No.15 of pages 20 filed a false suit against the defendants. No cause of action has ever arisen in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
5. The plaintiff filed replication to the Written Statement of defendants wherein it denied the claim/allegations raised in the Written Statement and the averments those were raised in the plaint of the suit were reaffirmed and reasserted.
6. Then from the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed vide order dated 09.01.2008:
(i).Whether the suit has been filed without any cause of action? OPD.
(ii).Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD.
(iii).Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed due to nonjoinder of necessary party as per preliminary objection no.2? OPD.
(iv).Whether suit has been verified in accordance with the provisions of CPC? OPP.
(v).Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs.5 Lacs from defendants, as per para 30 of his plaint?
OPP.
(vi).Relief.
7. In support of his case plaintiff himself appeared in the witness box Shiv Narain Singh Vs. Mahashay Chuni Lal Charitable Trust & Anr. Page No.16 of pages 20 as PW1, whereas the defendants are exparte in this case.
8. In his examinationinchief tendered by way of affidavit Ex.P1, PW1 has reiterated the contents of plaint.
During cross examination, he confirmed that he is running Shiv Confidence Dental Laboratory and there are 89 employees with him out of them 4 to 5 people involved with field jobs and remaining persons are engaged in manufacturing/preparation of denture etc. He also named his few employees as Ajay Kumar, Chandan, Mahesh and Prashant. He further confirmed that Ajay Kumar is still working with him, whereas the remaining persons have left the job. Ajay Kumar was residing in Rohini. He used to go to Mata Chanan Devi Hospital with him.
9. It is pertinent to mention here that vide order dated 05.10.2011, while allowing the application of plaintiff moved U/o 6 R 14 r.w. Sec.151 CPC, the plaintiffs were allowed to take on record certain documents, which are marked as Mark A, B & C. In the said documents there is one AnnexureA Mark A (colly.) wherein the details of the bills pending with the hospital for payment for the amount of Rs.4,65,660/ are mentioned. The plaintiff has also placed on record photocopies of various communication mark B (colly.) took place between the plaintiff and defendant no.2. Photocopies of Shiv Narain Singh Vs. Mahashay Chuni Lal Charitable Trust & Anr. Page No.17 of pages 20 various bills mark C (colly.) raised in the name of defendant no.1 are also placed on record.
10. The evidence led by the plaintiff bank remained uncontroverted and unrebutted on record as the defendants brought no evidence in the rebuttal thereof. Further, in the cross examination nothing material has been taken out from the PW1 to disbelieve his testimony. As such plaintiff is entitled for a decree in its favour and against the defendants for the sum of Rs.5,00,000/ (Rs. Five Lakhs only) alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the suit till the realization of decreetal amount. Cost of the suit is also awarded to the plaintiff. Decree stands passed accordingly.
11. Decree Sheet be prepared.
12. File be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(Announced in the open Court (RAKESH KUMAR)
today on 22.12.2011) ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE03 (C)
DELHI
Shiv Narain Singh Vs. Mahashay Chuni Lal Charitable Trust & Anr. Page No.18 of pages 20
Suit No.768/08
Shiv Narain Singh Vs. Mahashay Chuni Lal Charitable Trust & Anr.
22.12.2011
Present: Sh. S.P. Gupta Ld. counsel for plaintiff.
Defendants exparte.
It is pointed out by Ld. counsel for the plaintiff that vide order dated 05.10.2011, while allowing the application of plaintiff moved U/o 6 R 14 r.w. Sec.151 CPC, the plaintiff was allowed to take on record certain documents and now the said documents may be marked as Mark A (colly.), B (colly.) & C (colly.). Allowed.
It is also submitted by Ld. counsel for the plaintiff that he does not want to press his application moved U/s 11 R 12 & 14 CPC and the same may kindly be treated as withdrawn. It is further stated that plaintiff does not want to lead any further evidence.
Statement of Ld. counsel for plaintiff in this regard recorded separately. Statement perused.
In view of the submissions of Ld. counsel for plaintiff, the application moved U/s 11 R 12 & 14 CPC stands dismissed as withdrawn. Plaintiff's evidence also stands closed.
Final arguments heard. Put up at 4.00 p.m for orders.
(RAKESH KUMAR)
ADJ03 (CENTRAL)/22.12.2011
Shiv Narain Singh Vs. Mahashay Chuni Lal Charitable Trust & Anr. Page No.19 of pages 20
22.12.2011 (at 4.00 p.m)
Present: As before.
Vide a separate judgment, suit of the plaintiff is decreed. Decree Sheet be prepared.
File be consigned to Record Room after completion of necessary formalities.
(RAKESH KUMAR) ADJ03 (CENTRAL)/22.12.2011 Shiv Narain Singh Vs. Mahashay Chuni Lal Charitable Trust & Anr. Page No.20 of pages 20