Delhi District Court
Sh. Rajbir Singh vs The Regional Officer (Aqcs) on 14 February, 2023
Page 1 of 19
THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-01: SOUTH WEST
DISTRICT: DWARKA COURT: NEW DELHI
Unique case ID No: CSSCJ/ 903/21
CNR NO. DLSW030017972021
IN THE MATTER OF :
Sh. Rajbir Singh,
Prop. Of M/s. R.K. Furnitures,
G-745, Mangolpuri, New Delhi-110083. ............... Plaintiff
Versus
1. The Regional Officer (AQCS)
Department of AHD
Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry &
Dairying), Govt. of India,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001.
2. Life Stock Officer (LH)
Department of AHD
Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry &
Dairying), Govt. of India,
Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110001
3. Joint Secretary (LH),
Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry &
Dairying), Govt. Of India, Krishi Bhawan
New Delhi-110001 ................ Defendants
Date of filing : 13.09.2021
Date of Institution : 14.09.2021
Date of pronouncing judgment : 14.02.2023
SUIT FOR RECOERY OF MONEY WITH PENDENTE-
LITE AND FUTURE INTEREST.
JUDGMENT.
Vide this judgment this Court shall dispose of present suit
for recovery of money filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.
ASHISH Digitally
by ASHISH
signed
Civil Suit No. 923/21 Rajbir Singh vs. The Regional Officer (AQCS) & anr. KUMAR KUMAR MEENA
Date: 2023.02.14
MEENA 16:09:48 +05'30'
Page 2 of 19
Before adjudicating upon the issues framed in the present suit, it
necessary to dwell upon the plethora of pleadings in the present
suit.
1.Pleadings of the plaintiff.
1.1. It is averred that the plaintiff in the year 2019 has done the
work of repairing and renovation of all kinds of furniture in the
office of the defendant No.1 and completed the said work
assigned to him within time as per the due satisfaction. The
plaintiff also raised and submitted the bills for the work done
by him with the defendant No.1 in the month of September,
2019.
1.2. It is averred that on 02.8.2019 the defendant No.1 has
written a letter to defendant No.2/livestock officer (LH) and
also sent the copy to defendant No.3/Joint Secretary, in which
the No.1 sent the proposal to re-process the bills raised by the
plaintiff as ex-post facto sanction of competent authority of
Rs.78,954/- plus GST from budget grant No.003 functional
head 240300101360113 (office expenses) in F.Y. 2019-20 for
final regularization and settlement ultimately. After this letter
no steps have been taken to clear the said bills amount. The
plaintiff wrote a letter dated 13.1.2020 to release the above said
amount but also with no result. It is submitted that plaintiff
again sent a letter dated 5.10.2020 thereby demanding the said
amount and the plaintiff received the reply dated 7.10.2020
from the defendant No.1 in which they requested the plaintiff
to submit the copy of officials work order.
1.3. Further, on 12.10.2020 the plaintiff submitted the copy of
the bills to the defendant No. 1 because no official work order
ASHISH Digitally
by ASHISH
signed
Civil Suit No. 923/21 Rajbir Singh vs. The Regional Officer (AQCS) & anr. KUMAR KUMAR MEENA
Date:
2023.02.14
MEENA 16:10:00 +05'30'
Page 3 of 19
was supplied to the plaintiff and the work was done as per the
instructions received verbally and no formal work order was
given as usual as per the practice followed by the defendant
No.1 and on this technical issue the defendant no.1 is withhold
the legal dues of the plaintiff.
1.4. It is further averred that on 22.10.2020 the plaintiff received
a letter from defendant No.1 in which they asked the plaintiff
to submit some proof of such verbal instructions with name of
such person who verbally offered the plaintiff so much volume
of work order for AQCS, New Delhi and it is necessary for
departmental enquiry and audit observation. Further, as per the
letter dated 2.8.2019 there is no dispute in respect of the work
done by the plaintiff and it is the internal matter of all the
defendants that who will give the verbal instructions to the
plaintiff and it is also the internal matter of all the defendants
to fix officials responsibility upon such person.
1.5. It is also averred that all the defendants are illegally
withholding the amount of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is
legally entitled to receive the said amount with interest @ 12%
per w.e.f. 1.10.2019 till the filing of suit i.e. 2.9.2021 and
interest comes to Rs.16, 440/- and hence the total suit amount
comes to Rs.98,640/-. The defendant is also liable to pay
pendente-lite, and future interest @ 12% p.a. from the date of
filing the suit till realization.
1.6. Further, plaintiff has also sent a mandatory legal notice
U/s.80 C.P.C. dated 5.12.2020 to the defendants through his
counsel, but the defendants did not bother to comply with the
said legal notice nor replied the same.
ASHISH Digitally
by ASHISH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR
Date:
MEENA
2023.02.14
Civil Suit No. 923/21 Rajbir Singh vs. The Regional Officer (AQCS) & anr.
MEENA 16:10:07 +05'30'
Page 4 of 19
1.7. Hence, plaintiff seeks the following reliefs:
a) A decree in the sum of Rs.98,640/- with pendent lite and
future interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing the
present suit till the realization in favour of the plaintiff
against the defendants.
b. Cost of the suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the
defendants.
2. Written statement filed by the defendant:
2.1. It is submitted that Shri Rajbir Singh, Prop. of M/s R.K.
Furniture (Plaintiff herein), vide their Bills dated from
25.04.2019 to 19.07.2019 (total 14 Bills) claimed for payment
towards the work done by the firm stating that the works were
accomplished on the basis of verbal request from office of
Animal Quarantine Certification Services (AQCS), New
Delhi. The Bills were scrutinized by the Pay and Accounts
Office of AQCS, New Delhi and found that the works were not
done as per the laid down procedure of the public procurement
as envisaged in General Financial Rules, 2017 and other extant
guidelines and the rates were on higher side.
2.2. It is submitted that Rule 136 of GFR, 2017 clearly stipulates
that no work shall be commenced or liability incurred in
connection with it until a Work Order issued. Rule 139 of GFR,
2017 also stipulates that final payment for work shall be made
only on the Personal Certificate of the Officer-in-charge of
execution of the work in the format given below:
2.3. It is submitted that instant case, as alleged by the plaintiff,
no such verbal instructions were given by anyone to carry out
ASHISH Digitally
by ASHISH
signed
Civil Suit No. 923/21 Rajbir Singh vs. The Regional Officer (AQCS) & anr. KUMAR KUMAR
Date:
MEENA
2023.02.14
MEENA 16:10:14 +05'30'
Page 5 of 19
any work in the department. All the work are carried out only
as per the extant instructions contained in the Rules 136 and
139 of GFR.
2.4. It is submitted that Rule 155 of GFR, 2017 clearly stipulates
that Purchase of goods costing above Rs. 25,000/- and upto Rs.
2,50,000/- on each occasion may be made on the
recommendations of a duly constituted Local Purchase
Committee (LPC) consisting of three members of an
appropriate level as decided by the Head of the Department.
The Committee will survey the market to ascertain the
reasonableness of rate, quality and specifications and identify
the appropriate supplier.
2.5. It is submitted that the copy of recommendation of LPC and
approval of Head of Department is essential documents/
information for the competent authority for validation of
transaction i.e. Pay and Accounts office for Central
Government Departments.
2.6. It is further submitted that Delegation of Financial Power
Rules, 1978 stipulates that procurement/service upto Rs.
5,000/- can be carried out by Head of Office and for all
procurement above Rs. 5,000/- approval of HoD is essential.
The production of these documents in the instant case is not
feasible, as these are the processes before the commencement
of the work.
2.7. It is submitted that the payment for any procurement/
service is always subjected to the satisfaction of work, reason-
ability of the rate and the audit scrutiny at any given point of
time. These rules are of the nature of routine/regular practices
ASHISH Digitally
by ASHISH
signed
Rajbir Singh vs. The Regional Officer (AQCS) & anr. KUMAR Date: 2023.02.14
KUMAR MEENA
Civil Suit No. 923/21
MEENA 16:10:22 +05'30'
Page 6 of 19
being followed in all the Government offices and the firm must
have been aware of it, by virtue of their experience in similar
work in the various Government Offices. The plaintiff has also
failed to provide the work completion certificate against the
work carried out. The plaintiff was requested to provide the
said documents vide this Department's letter dated 07.10.2020,
22.10.2020 and 21.12.2020, but the plaintiff failed to provide
the same.
2.8. It is submitted by the defendants in their written statement
that the contents of plaint are false, wrong thus vehemently
denied.
3. Replication to the WS has been filed by the plaintiff, in
which he reiterated the averments as in the plaint and denied the
contents of WS of the defendant.
4. Issue framed on 13.04.2023 as follows:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of
Rs.98,640/- alongwith interest pendente-lite and future interest
@ 12% per annum against the defendants for supply the goods
to the defendants? ..........OPP.
2.Reliefs.
5. On the basis of issued framed, plaintiff led his evidence and
examined only one witness. Plaintiff has got himself examined as
PW1. In his himself as PW1. In his testimony, PW1 tendered his
evidence by way of affidavit being Ex.PW1/A and he reiterated
the contents of the plaint and also relied upon the following
documents:
ASHISH Digitally
by ASHISH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR
Date:
MEENA
2023.02.14
Civil Suit No. 923/21 Rajbir Singh vs. The Regional Officer (AQCS) & anr.MEENA 16:10:30 +05'30'
Page 7 of 19
1) The copy of invoices (14 invoices) w.e.f. 25.4.2019 to
19.7.2019 which are filed by the defendants are collectively
Ex.PW1/1(colly).
2) Copy of letter dt. 02.08.2019 is Ex.PW1/2.
3) Copy of letter dt. 05.10.2020 is marked as Mark A and reply
dt. 07.10.2020 is Ex.PW1/3.
4) The copy of letter dt. 12.10.2020 is marked as Mark B.
5) The letter dt. 22.10.2020 is Ex.PW1/4.
6) Office copy of legal notice with original postal receipts and
tracking reports are collectively Ex.PW1/5(colly).
6. During cross-examination, PW1 deposed that he
approached in the office of defendant in the year 2019. He met one
Sh. Rajiv Khosla, head of the office at AQCS, Kapashera, Delhi.
He had not made any request to execute an agreement of the
alleged work done with the concerned officer. (Vol- he was doing
work in the office for the last 8-10 years on the verbal instruction
of the defendant no.1). Since 2012-2014 he was doing the work
with the defendant no.1 on request of the concerned officers.
During the years of his work with the defendant no.1 for the last
8-10 years, there were 3 to 4 officers have been changed. He is not
aware as to how much amounts of bill have been sent to the
defendant no.1 in the year 2014-2015. The amount was paid by the
defendant no.1 but he is not annexed the same with the present
suit. He is also not aware how much amount of work have been
done in the year 2017-2018. It is wrong to suggest that he is
deliberately not telling the amount of work done in the year 2017-
2018 because the said amount was approved by the Pay and
Accounts of the defendant no.1. Sh. Rajiv Khosla, Regional officer ASHISH
Digitally signed by
KUMAR ASHISH KUMAR MEENA
Date: 2023.02.14 16:10:38
+05'30'
Civil Suit No. 923/21 Rajbir Singh vs. The Regional Officer (AQCS) & anr.
MEENA
Page 8 of 19
AQCS has not informed him that the payment of bills about the
amounts of Rs.25,000/- was to be passed by the local purchase
committee through market survey. It is correct that he has received
the letter Ex.PW1/4 and letter dt. 21.12.2020 now exhibited as
Ex.PW1/DX1, but he has not replied the same and not disclosed
the name of the concerned officer who signed me the work as
alleged. He has not done work more than the amount of Rs.
80,000/- from the year 2014 to 2019. The defendant no.1 had not
issued any work completion certificate. It is correct that he had not
made any request to defendant no.1 to issue the work completion
certificate for the year 2019. It is wrong to suggest that he had
prepared the bill above the market value. It is wrong to suggest
that Mr. Rajiv Khosla, regional officer AQCS has made the total
bill amount to him in cash in his personal capacity. It is further
wrong to suggest that he is claiming the amount which is already
received by him in cash. It is wrong to suggest that he is deposing
falsely.
7. Defendants did not opt to lead defense evidence. On the
basis of application filed on behalf of defendants through their
Counsel, defense evidence was closed on 04.1.2023.
8. Final arguments were heard. Record perused.
9. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff have submitted that on the basis of
verbal agreement of Defendant no.1, plaintiff completed the work.
It is further submitted that defendants have admitted the work done
by the plaintiff, bill raised qua the work done by the plaintiff. It is
also admitted that the work was done on the instance of then
AQCS/Defendant no.1. It is further submitted that oral agreement
is also a valid contract because the plaintiff has started &
ASHISH Digitally
by ASHISH
signed
KUMAR KUMAR
Date:
MEENA
Civil Suit No. 923/21 Rajbir Singh vs. The Regional Officer (AQCS) & anr.
MEENA 2023.02.14
16:10:47 +05'30'
Page 9 of 19
completed the work on oral agreement and instance Sh. Rajiv
Khosla, then AQCS. It is submitted that despite opportunity,
defendants have not led any evidence to disprove the case of
plaintiff. He has successfully discharged the burden of proof.
Therefore, plaintiff's suit be decreed in his favour.
10. On contrary, Ld. Counsel for defendants has submitted that
the suit of plaintiff is bound to get dismissed. It is submitted that
the claim of plaintiff is not valid against the defendants as plaintiff
has completed the work at the verbal instruction of Sh. Rajiv
Khosla. The work was given in personal capacity and defendants
are not liable for the act done by Sh. Rajiv Khosla in his personal
capacity as there is no valid contract. Further, it is submitted that
the there is no formal contract between the parties, therefore, the
suit of plaintiff be dismissed.
11.Issue-wise findings as under:
ISSUE NO.1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of
Rs.98,640/- alongwith interest pendente-lite and future interest
@ 12% per annum against the defendants for supply the goods
to the defendants? ....... OPP.
Burden to prove the said issues no.1 is upon plaintiff. In
order to prove his case on a better footing, it was imperative for
the plaintiff to lead convincing evidence to show that plaintiff is
entitled to decree of Rs. 98,640/- on the basis work done by him
as per requirement and directions of defendants.
12. On perusal of case file and more specifically written
statement filed by the defendants, it reveals that the defendants
have admitted that plaintiff has done the work of repairing and
ASHISH Digitally signed
by ASHISH
Rajbir Singh vs. The Regional Officer (AQCS) & anr. KUMAR Date: 2023.02.14
KUMAR MEENA
Civil Suit No. 923/21
MEENA 16:10:56 +05'30'
Page 10 of 19
renovation in the office of defendant no.1. It is also admitted that
plaintiff raised 14 bills (which are duly produced by plaintiff as
Ex. PW1/1) against the work done by plaintiff in the office of
defendant no.1. It is also admitted that plaintiff also wrote a letter
to defendant no.2 and defendant no.3 demanding the payment of
work done by him.
13. It is pertinent to mention that the plaintiff was burdened to
prove that he was assigned a work/renovation to be done in the
office of Defendant no.1. Further, he was also burdened to prove
that the work was completed and he raised alleged bills for the
work done. As mentioned above, defendants have admitted that
the work was done by the plaintiff for which he also raised various
bills which is Ex. PW1/1. Further, during cross-examination, it is
also admitted that the work was done on verbal request of Sh.
Rajiv Khosla, then in-charge of AQCS. Plaintiff has remained
successful that the work was orally assigned to him by Sh. Rajiv
Khosla (then Regional Officer, AQCS)/ defendant no.1. On verbal
directions of Sh. Rajiv Khosla, plaintiff completed the work and
raised various bills Ex. PW1/1.
14. Further, defendant has not filed any evidence to support
their pleadings. The only defense taken by defendants is that the
plaintiff claimed the payment towards the work done by him on
basis of verbal request from office of AQCS, New Delhi and the
same does not amount to formal contract. Further, the bills were
scrutinized by the Pay and Accounts office of AQCS, New Delhi
and it was found that the work was not done as per laid procedure
of the public procurement as given in General Financial Rules,
2017. It is submitted that as per Rule 136 of GFR, 2017 clearly
stipulates that no work shall commenced or liability incurred in
ASHISH Digitally signed
by ASHISH
Civil Suit No. 923/21 Rajbir Singh vs. The Regional Officer (AQCS) & anr. KUMAR KUMAR MEENA
Date: 2023.02.14
MEENA 16:11:10 +05'30'
Page 11 of 19
connection with it until a Work order is issued. Similarly, Rule 139
of GFR also stipulates that final payment for work shall be made
only on the personal certificate of the officer-in-charge of
execution of the work in the format. It is further stated that the
plaintiff is in the violation of basic principle of rules and provisions
as cited above.
15. As per submissions of defendants, the major contention of
defendants are that there was no formal contract. However, the
defendants have received the benefits of the work done by the
plaintiff. In this regard, Section 70 of Indian Contract Act, 1872
("Act") becomes relevant. It is significant to state provision of Sec.
70, which is as follows:
Section 70- Where a person lawfully does anything
for another person, or delivers anything to him, not
intending to do so gratuitously, and such other person
enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make
compensation to the former in respect of, or to
restore, the thing so done or delivered
16. As per section 70, there are three ingredients to this
provision. (1) a person should lawfully do something for another
person or deliver something to him; (2) in doing the said thing or
delivering the said thing must not intended to act gratuitously; and
(3) the other person or whom something is done or to whom
something is delivered must enjoy the benefit thereof.
17. Further, in case titled as State of West Bengal vs M/S. B. K.
Mondal and Sons (1962 AIR 779, 1962 SCR Supl. (1) 876),
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has dealt with similar factual
matrix. In this case, the plaintiff, on request of an officer of State
ASHISH Digitally
by ASHISH
signed
Rajbir Singh vs. The Regional Officer (AQCS) & anr. KUMAR Date:
KUMAR MEENA
Civil Suit No. 923/21
2023.02.14
MEENA 16:11:19 +05'30'
Page 12 of 19
of West Bengal, constructed rooms, office etc. for the department
of Government. The state accepted the work was done by the
contractor but tried to escape the liability under the pretence that
no contract had been concluded in accordance with the
requirement of Section 175(3) of the Government of India Act,
1935 (now Article 299 of The Constitution of India). The Hon'ble
Supreme Court held that the Government cannot escape the
liability as Section 70 of the Act is applicable in the said case. It
was held that conditions as prescribed in Section 70 were satisfied
by the facts. Also, State even after having requested for the works
had the right to reject but the same was not exercised. It was also
held that even though statutory requirement for enforcement of
contract was not followed, however, the said controversy was got
over by holding that what was sought to be enforced was not a
contract, but a relation resembling those created by contract, also
known as "Quasi-Contract".
18. In the case of State of West Bengal vs M/S. B. K. Mondal
and Sons (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that: -
"It is plain that three conditions must be satisfied before
this section can be invoked. The first condition is that a
person should lawfully do something for another person or
deliver something to him. The second condition is that in
doing the said thing or delivering the said thing he must
not intend to act gratuitously; and the third is that the other
person for whom something is done or to whom something
is delivered must enjoy the benefit thereof. When these
conditions are satisfied s. 70 imposes upon the latter
person, the liability to make compensation to the former in
respect of or to restore, the thing so done or delivered. In
appreciating the scope and effect of the provisions of this
section it would be useful to illustrate how this section it
would operate. If a person delivers something to another it ASHISH by ASHISH
Digitally signed
KUMAR KUMAR MEENA
Date: 2023.02.14
Civil Suit No. 923/21 MEENA 16:11:28 +05'30'
Rajbir Singh vs. The Regional Officer (AQCS) & anr.
Page 13 of 19
would be open to the latter person to refuse to accept the
thing or to return it; in that case s. 70 would not come in
to operation. Similarly, if a person does something for
another it would be open to the latter person not to accept
what has been done by the former; in that case again s. 70
would not apply. In other words, the person said to be
made liable under s. 70 always has the option not to accept
the thing or to return it. It is only where he voluntarily
accepts the thing or enjoys the work done that the liability
under s. 70 arises. Taking the facts in the case before us,
after the respondent constructed the warehouse, for
instance, it was open to the appellant to refuse to accept the said warehouse and to have the benefit of it. It could have called upon the respondent to demolish the said warehouse and take away the materials used by it in constructing it; but; if the appellant accepted the said warehouse and used it and enjoyed its benefit then different considerations come into play and s. 70 can be invoked. Section 70 occurs in chapter V which deals with certain relations resembling those created by contract. In other words, this chapter does not deal with the rights or liabilities accruing from the contract. It deals with the rights and liabilities accruing from relations which resemble those created by contract. That being so, reverting to the facts of the present case once again after the respondent constructed the warehouse it would not be open to the respondent to compel the appellant to accept it because what the respondent has done is not in pursuance of the terms of any valid contract and the respondent in making the construction took the risk of the rejection of the work by the appellant. Therefore, in cases falling under s. 70 the person doing something for another or delivering something to another cannot sue for the specific performance of the contract nor ask for damages for the breach of the contract for the simple reason that there is no contract between him and the other person for whom he does something or to whom he delivers something. All that s. 70 provides is that if the goods delivered are accepted or ASHISH Digitally signed by ASHISH the work done is voluntarily enjoyed then the liability to KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date: 2023.02.14 Civil Suit No. 923/21 Rajbir Singh vs. The Regional Officer (AQCS) & anr.MEENA 16:11:37 +05'30' Page 14 of 19 pay compensation for the enjoyment of the said goods or the acceptance of the said work arises. Thus, where a claim for compensation is made by one person against another under s. 70, it is not on the basis of any subsisting contract between the parties, it is on the basis of the fact that something was done by the party for another and the said work so done has been voluntarily accepted by the other party. That broadly stated is the effect of the conditions prescribed by s. 70.
It is, however, urged by Mr. Sen that the recognition of the respondent's claim for compensation virtually permits the circumvention of the mandatory provisions of s. 175(3), because, he argues, the work done by the respondent is no more than the performance of a so-called contract which is contrary to the said provisions and that cannot be the true intent of s. 70. It is thus clear that this argument proceeds on the assumption that if a decree is passed in favour of the respondent for compensation as alternatively claimed by it, it would in substance amount to treating the invalid contract as being valid. In our opinion, this argument is not well-founded. It is true that the provisions of s. 175(3) are mandatory and if any contract is made in contravention of the said provisions the said contract would be invalid; but it must be remembered that the cause of action for the alternative claim of the respondent is not the breach of any contract by the appellant; in fact, the alternative claim is based on the assumption that the contract in pursuance of which the respondent made the constructions in question was ineffective and as such amounted to no contract at all. The respondent says that it has done some work which has been accepted and enjoyed by the appellant and it is the voluntary acceptance and enjoyment of the said work which is the cause of action for the alternative claim. Can it be said that when the respondent built the warehouse, for instance, without a valid contract between it and the appellant it was doing something contrary to s. 175(3)? As we have already made it clear even if the respondent built the warehouse he could not have forced the appellant to accept it and the appellant ASHISH Digitally by ASHISH signed KUMAR KUMAR Date:
MEENA Civil Suit No. 923/21 Rajbir Singh vs. The Regional Officer (AQCS) & anr. 2023.02.14 MEENA 16:11:46 +05'30' Page 15 of 19 may well have asked it to demolish the warehouse and take away the materials. Therefore, the mere act of constructing the warehouse on the part of the respondent cannot be said to contravene the provisions of s. 175(3). In this connection it may be relevant to consider illustration (a) to s. 70. The said illustration shows that if A a tradesman leaves goods at his house by mistake, and B treats the goods as his own he is bound to pay A for them. Now, if we assume that B stands for the State Government, can it be said that A was contravening the provisions of s. 175(3) when by mistake he left the goods at the house of B? The answer to this question is obviously in the negative. Therefore, if goods are delivered by A to the State Government by mistake and the State Government accepts the goods and enjoys them a claim for compensation can be made by A against the State Government, and in entertaining the said claim the Court could not be upholding the contravention of s. 175(3) at all either directly or indirectly. Once it is realised that the cause of action for a claim for compensation under s. 70 is based not upon the delivery of the goods or the doing of any work as such but upon the acceptance and enjoyment of the said goods or the said work it would not be difficult to hold that s. 70 does not treat as valid the contravention of s. 175(3) of the Act. That being so, the principal argument urged by Mr. Sen that the respondent's construction of s.70 nullifies the effect of s. 175(3) of the Act cannot be accepted."
19. Similarly, in case of Mulamchand vs State Of Madhya Pradesh (1968 AIR 1218, 1968 SCR (3) 214), Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held on the same lines. The relevant para is as follows: -
"If the conditions imposed by Section 70 of Indian Contract Act are satisfied then the provisions of that section can be invoked by the aggrieved party to a void contract. The first condition is that a person should lawfully do ASHISH Digitally by ASHISH signed KUMAR KUMAR Date:
MEENA 2023.02.14 Civil Suit No. 923/21 MEENA 16:11:56 +05'30' Rajbir Singh vs. The Regional Officer (AQCS) & anr.Page 16 of 19
something for another person or deliver something to him; the second condition is that in doing the said thing or delivering the said thing he must not intend to act gratuitously; and the third condition is that the other person for whom something is done or to whom something is delivered must enjoy the benefit thereof. If these conditions are satisfied, Section 70 imposes upon the latter person the liability to make compensation to the former in respect of the thing so done or delivered"
20. Coming back to the present case, Section 70 of the Act applies to present matter. Plaintiff has fulfilled the ingredients of Section 70 of the Act. First condition that the fact that the plaintiff has lawfully done the work for the defendants. It is admitted by the defendants that the work of renovation of furniture in the office of defendant no.1 has been completed by the plaintiff. Further, "lawfully" in the context indicates is that after something is delivered or something is done by one person for another and that thing is accepted and enjoyed by the latter, a lawful relationship is born between the two which under the provisions of Sec. 70 gives rise to a claim for compensation. In present case, plaintiff has completed the work and the said work was never refused or rejected by the defendants. In view of the same, first condition of Sec. 70 is fulfilled.
21. Second condition i.e the fact that the plaintiff had not intended to work gratuitously, is proved by the testimony of PW-1 and the admission made in WS filed by the defendants. As per the evidence available on record, it is clear that plaintiff has raised several bills vide Ex. PW1/1 for the work done him and these bills are also not disputed by the defendants. Further, it is proved that Digitally signed ASHISH byKUMAR ASHISH MEENA KUMAR Date:
2023.02.14 Civil Suit No. 923/21 Rajbir Singh vs. The Regional Officer (AQCS) & anr.
MEENA 16:12:05 +05'30' Page 17 of 19 the work was done on oral request of Sh. Rajiv Khosla, then Regional officer AQCS/Defendant no.1. In view of the same, second condition is also proved and fulfilled by the plaintiff.
22. The third condition i.e the fact that the defendants had enjoyed the benefit of the services rendered by the plaintiff is proved by the testimony of PW-1 and documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff. Further, the it is also admitted by the defendants that the work was done in the office of Defendant No.1. Further, defendants have never refused the services of plaintiff. It is pertinent mention that the defendants have accepted the work done by the plaintiff. There is no evidence on record to show that defendants had rejected the work of plaintiff or refused/restrained him to carry out the work. It is also not available on record to show that defendant no.1 was incapable of entering into contract with the plaintiff. In view of this Court, defendants have accepted the work done by the plaintiff and also enjoyed the benefit of work done. In view of the same, plaintiff has remained successful to fulfill and prove the third condition as well.
23. In summary, plaintiff has completed the work of renovation of furniture in the office of Defendant No.1 on oral request of Sh. Rajiv Khosla. The plaintiff has lawfully completed the work. The said work was done without the intention to act gratuitously and the defendants have derived the benefit from the work done by the plaintiff. Further, contention of defendants that there is no contract between the parties is not tenable as Article 299 of the Constitution of India does not bar the grant of an equitable relief to a plaintiff under Section 70 of the Contract Act, 1872; that the equitable relief under Section 70 of the Contract Act, 1872, can be granted to a plaintiff, provided the conduct of the plaintiff is upright and the ASHISH Digitally by ASHISH signed Rajbir Singh vs. The Regional Officer (AQCS) & anr. KUMAR Date:
KUMAR MEENA Civil Suit No. 923/21 2023.02.14 MEENA 16:12:14 +05'30' Page 18 of 19 ingredients of Section 70 of the Contract Act, 1872 are satisfied and that the mere failure of the plaintiff to plead that he is claiming equitable relief as per Section 70 of the Contract Act, 1872 does not, by itself, constitute sufficient reason, to deny the said relief to the plaintiff.
24. Another issue before this Court is that what should be the measure of compensation to the plaintiff under section 70 of the Act. In this regard, if one party without an enforceable contract in its favour does an act on defendant's request is entitled to recovery of money for the work done at the assessed market rate prevailing on the date on which the work was done or completed. Though, the claim under section 70 of the Act is not based upon any contract, yet the quasi contract between the parties is relevant at least for indicating the fair measure of computing the recovery of money/compensation. In present case, the existence of invoice / bill quoted by the plaintiff vide Ex. PW1/1 are admitted by the defendants. Further, defendants have failed to show if these bills raised by the plaintiff were exorbitant in nature. Further, Ex. PW1/1 are considered to be the fair measure of compensation giving the defendants the right to show that market rate/price were less than the quoted price. However, defendants have neither raised any averment in their WS nor produced any evidence in this regard.
25. Thus, in view of above discussion and law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court, the issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants. In view of this Court, plaintiff is entitled to the equitable relief under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and therefore, the defendants are liable to pay to the plaintiff as price of the non-gratuitous services rendered by ASHISH Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date: 2023.02.14 Civil Suit No. 923/21 Rajbir Singh vs. The Regional Officer (AQCS) & anr.
MEENA 16:12:22 +05'30' Page 19 of 19 the plaintiff.
26. Relief: The suit of the plaintiff is therefore decreed in the favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, the Defendants are directed to pay Rs. 98,640/- alongwith pendente-lite and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The parties shall bear their own costs.
27. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
28. File be consigned to Record Room after compliance with due formalities.
Announced in the open court on 14.02.2023 ASHISH Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date: 2023.02.14 MEENA 16:12:31 +05'30' (Ashish Kumar Meena) Civil Judge-01(SW) Dwarka Courts, New Delhi 14.02.2023 It is certified that the present judgment runs into nineteen pages and each page bears my signature. ASHISH Digitally signed by ASHISH KUMAR KUMAR MEENA Date: 2023.02.14 MEENA 16:12:42 +05'30' (Ashish Kumar Meena) Civil Judge-01(SW) Dwarka Courts, New Delhi 14.02.2023 Civil Suit No. 923/21 Rajbir Singh vs. The Regional Officer (AQCS) & anr.