Delhi District Court
Sunil Anand vs Sukhpal Singh on 15 October, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. PRASHANT KUMAR, ADJ - 01
CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS NO. 10712/2016
Sunil Anand, Partner of
M/s Khukhrain Builders,
at 2300, Hudson Lane,
Kingsway Camp, Delhi
...............Plaintiff
Versus
Sukhpal Singh, Director,
EFactor Events India (Pvt.) Ltd.
509, Level 5, 16, Vikram Tower,
Rajender Place,
New Delhi - 110 008, India
............Defendant
Date of institution of the suit : 29.11.2014
Date on which order was reserved : 09.10.2019
Date of decision : 15.10.2019
SUIT FOR DAMAGES OF RS.19,00,000/
ALONG WITH INTEREST
JUDGMENT
1. The present suit is preferred by the plaintiff seeking damages to the tune of Rs.19,00,000/ from the defendant. In brief, facts of the present suit is that plaintiff is carrying on his business as a CS No. 10712/2016 Sunil Anand Vs. Sukhpal Singh Page No. 1 of 25 partner under the name and style of M/s Khukhrain Builders and defendant is alleged to be in the business of Events Management in EFactor Events India (Pvt.) Ltd. as its Director.
2. It is contended that plaintiff appointed defendant as Event Manager for various programs for the marriage ceremonies of his son. On 28.01.2013, the defendant had to arrange a Ghazal Night by Sh.Pankaj Udas in "The Lalit Hotel" for which plaintiff paid lakhs of rupees and also booked Air Tickets from Mumbai to Delhi for Sh.Pankaj Udhas and his team of 7 persons. Plaintiff also got rooms booked at the hotel. However, despite assurances defendant did not arrange the event program which caused immense mental pain, agony, humiliation as well as financial losses to the plaintiff. It is averred that when plaintiff contacted defendant to know the reasons, defendant regretted and gave false excuses to cover up his misdeeds and assured to return the payment in cash, however, despite repeated requests the defendant failed to make the payment. Consequently, plaintiff issued legal notice dated 26.07.2014 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/, however, despite service neither did the defendant replied to the said notice nor paid the amount. Resultantly, the present suit seeking recovery of damages of Rs.19,00,000/ along with interest.
CS No. 10712/2016 Sunil Anand Vs. Sukhpal Singh Page No. 2 of 253. Written statement was filed by the defendant wherein preliminary objections were taken that the suit is gross abuse and misuse of process of law and legal machinery. It is also contended that there is no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff and that the plaintiff has not approached the court with clean hands and have suppressed material facts. It is averred that plaintiff has to pay the balance amount of Rs.2,50,000/ for facilitating the marriage ceremony of his son on 28.01.2013 and 30.01.2013. it is also contended that the Ghazal programme was cancelled as the plaintiff did not make the payment one week prior as per contract which was intimated to the plaintiff well in advance. It is stated that plaintiff caused mental pain, agony and defamed the reputation of the defendant. In reply on merits, the averments made by the plaintiff in his plaint have been categorically denied and submitted that the Velvet Vices Pvt.Ltd.intimated the defendant regarding advance payment/full payment of Ghazal programme vide email dated 17.01.2013 which was further intimated by the defendant to the plaintiff. It is stated that despite intimation to the plaintiff regarding cancellation of Ghazal programme plaintiff made the payment of Rs.3,50,000/on the event day through RTGS on 28.01.2013. It is stated that the Ghazal program was contracted for CS No. 10712/2016 Sunil Anand Vs. Sukhpal Singh Page No. 3 of 25 Rs.10,00,000/ plus Rs.3,00,000/ . It is stated that the amount of Rs.10,00,000/ was returned to the plaintiff and Rs.3,00,000/ was returned through RTGS dated 05.02.2013 and an amount of Rs.50,000/ was withheld by the defendant on account of facilities provided to the plaintiff on 28.01.2013. It is alleged that the Air Ticket of Sh.Pankaj Udhas along with his team was also returned to the plaintiff but plaintiff did not return the cheques bearing no. 679664 and 679665 both dated 04.03.2013 for Rs.2,00,000/ and Rs.1,80,000/ respectively which were given by the defendant to the plaintiff for security amount to return the air ticket and RTGS amount deposited in the account of defendant. It is submitted by the defendant that he facilitated the function on 28.01.2013 by providing light, sound and decoration and contracted another artist. In rest of the WS, averments made by the plaintiff have been categorically denied and a prayer is made to dismiss the suit.
4. Replication was also filed on behalf of the plaintiff wherein averments made by defendant in his written statement is denied and the contents of the plaint are reiterated.
5. Thereafter, vide order dated 11.02.2016, Ld. Predecessor of this court framed the following issues CS No. 10712/2016 Sunil Anand Vs. Sukhpal Singh Page No. 4 of 25
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of damages from defendant? If so, to what extent and whether with interest and at what rate and for which period? OPP.
2. Relief.
6. In plaintiff's evidence, plaintiff got examined himself as PW1 and tendered in evidence his duly sworn in affidavit duly exhibited as Ex.PW1/A. In his testimony the following documents were exhibited.
Sr. Nature of documents Exhibited
No. as
1. The cheques bearing No. 679664 dated Ex.PW1/1 04.03.2013 for Rs.2 Lakhs and another (colly.) cheque for Rs.1.80 Lakhs both drawn on Punjab National Bank, Subzi Mandi, Delhi.
2. Notice dated 26.07.2014. Ex.PW1/2
3. The postal receipts. Ex.PW1/3 4. Copies of emails Ex.PW1/4 (Colly)
5. Certificate under Section 65 B of the Ex.PW1/5 Indian Evidence Act.
PW1 was duly cross examined by the defendant.
7. Apart from examining himself as PW1, plaintiff also got examined Sh.Lalit Anand as PW2, who tendered in evidence CS No. 10712/2016 Sunil Anand Vs. Sukhpal Singh Page No. 5 of 25 his duly sworn in affidavit duly exhibited as Ex.PW2/A whereby he relied upon the document already exhibited as Ex.PW1/1 (colly.) The said witness was also cross examined by the defendant. Thereafter, vide order dated 16.02.2017, PE was closed subsequent to the statement of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and matter was listed for DE.
8. In defence evidence, defendant got himself examined as DW1 and tendered in evidence his duly sworn in affidavit exhibited as Ex.DW1/A. DW1 Sh. Sukhpal Singh was crossexamined at length. Thereafter, DE was closed vide order dated 28.03.2017.
9. Final arguments have been duly adduced. I have duly considered the arguments advanced by the Ld. counsels and have perused the evidence on record carefully. My issue wise findings are as under:
10.ISSUE No. 11. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of damages from defendant? If so, to what extent and whether with interest and at what rate and for which period?
OPP.
11. Plaintiff has examined himself as PW1 by filing his evidence CS No. 10712/2016 Sunil Anand Vs. Sukhpal Singh Page No. 6 of 25 by way of affidavit duly exhibited as Ex.PW1/A. Plaintiff has alleged that he appointed the defendant as event manager for the purpose of various programmes in the marriage ceremony of his son which were fixed for different dates i.e., 28.01.2013, 30.01.2013, 31.01.2013 and 02.02.2013. Plaintiff also made arrangement in 5 star hotel namely "The Lalit" for the above mentioned events. Plaintiff had also booked Air Ticket from Mumbai to Delhi for Sh.Pankaj Udhas, Sh.S.P.Singh in business class and for rest of his team of 7 persons in economy class. Plaintiff had also printed and distributed cards for this purpose. Plaintiff had also booked hotel rooms for Sh.Pankaj Udhas and his team as well as main hall of the hotel and also arranged the stage of performing program in the hotel. Copies of emails exchanged with defendant are Ex.PW1/4. It is stated that defendant cancelled the program due to which plaintiff and his family members had to undergo immense mental pain, agony, humiliation in the eyes of relatives, friends business circle etc. and also suffered due financial losses. It is further stated that when plaintiff inquired from the defendant about the reason, defendant felt sorry and regretted and made false excuses. Defendant also issued various cheques with an assurance to make the payment. Two cheques given by defendant of Rs. 2 lakhs and of Rs.1.80 Lakhs are Ex.PW1/1 CS No. 10712/2016 Sunil Anand Vs. Sukhpal Singh Page No. 7 of 25 (colly.). Defendant assured that he shall make the payment of entire amount however, only Rs. 3 Lakhs have been paid by RTGS. Plaintiff has also given legal notice dated 26.07.2014 duly exhibited as Ex.PW1/3. It has neither been replied nor any payment has been made.
12.During his crossexamination, it is reflected that defendant has not disputed the fact that a program for the night of Sh.Pankaj Udhas was arranged. PW1 admitted that payment for the concert was to be made in advance. Defendant gave a suggestion that consideration for the contract was Rs.10 Lakhs for which PW1 had stated that it was Rs.7 Lakhs. PW1 has further stated that he paid Rs.15,83,000/ to the defendant on different dates. It is stated that Rs.3.5 Lakhs was given through RTGS and remaining amount was given in cash. PW1 admitted that defendant has returned Rs.3 Lakhs through RTGS. PW1 denied the suggestion that he was informed in advance that program was cancelled.
13.PW2 Sh. Lalit Anand is the brother of plaintiff who has stated that he was aware that defendant was appointed as event manager for the purpose of various programs for the marriage ceremony of his nephew. PW2 has stated all the facts as CS No. 10712/2016 Sunil Anand Vs. Sukhpal Singh Page No. 8 of 25 alleged by PW1 in his examination in chief, therefore, they are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
14.During his crossexamination PW2 was not able to tell the exact amount of consideration in contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. PW2 also expressed his ignorance about any payment made by plaintiff to defendant. Beside this PW2 has corroborated what he has stated in his examinationinchief.
15.From the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 it is reflected that it is not disputed that defendant being the event manager had arranged for Sh. Pankaj Udhas night for various dates on the event of marriage of son of plaintiff. Defendant had disputed the consideration for the agreement alleging it to be Rs.10 Lakhs for which PW1 has stated that it was Rs.7 Lakhs. It is also a matter of record that the program was cancelled which is not disputed by the defendant. Now, the most important fact needs to be determined is as to whether such cancellation of event was due to the fault of plaintiff as no advance payment as alleged by defendant was made or it was due to defendant without any reasonable cause. Plaintiff have placed on record two cheques of Rs.1.80 Lakhs and Rs.2 Lakhs which are Ex.PW1/1 (colly.). By placing these cheques on record it is stated that these CS No. 10712/2016 Sunil Anand Vs. Sukhpal Singh Page No. 9 of 25 cheques were given by defendant by way of security that defendant shall met with the losses suffered by the plaintiff. These cheques are not disputed by defendant. There is no reply to the legal notice Ex.PW1/2. Address mentioned on the legal notice as well as postal receipts Ex.PW1/3 has not been disputed. Hence, the presumption laid down under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act applies here with full force and vigor. Such presumption laid down under Section 27 of the Act however, is rebuttable. It has also been stated by PW1 and PW2 that they have deposited the payment as required by the defendant however, the event was cancelled without any reason.
16.At this juncture, reference can be laid upon judgment titled as 'Metropolis Travel & Resorts (I) Vs. Shri Sumit Kalra and Anr.' 2002 VIAD Delhi 493 wherein it is held that :
"13. .................................. This court in the case of 'Kalu Ram v. Sita Ram', 1980 RLR (Note) 44 observed that service of notice having been admitted without reservation and that having not been replied in that eventuality adverse inference should be drawn because he kept quite over the notice and did not send any reply............................"
17.At this stage, it is also pertinent to mention Section 27 of the General Clauses Act :
CS No. 10712/2016 Sunil Anand Vs. Sukhpal Singh Page No. 10 of 25"Where any Central Act or Regulation made after the commencement of this Act authorizes or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression "serve" or "given" or "send" or any other expression is used, then, unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, prepaying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document, and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post."
18.The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.Bhaskaran vs Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan & Anr. (1999) 7 SCC 510 observed as under :
"The principle incorporated in Section 27 of the General Clauses Act could profitably be imported in a case where the sender had dispatched the notice by post with the direct address written on it. Then it can be deemed to have been served on the addressee, unless he proves that it was not really served and he was not responsible for such nonservice."
19. By having these above mentioned observation in mind, I am of the considered opinion that plaintiff has been able to shift the onus of all these facts upon the defendant. Now, the evidence led by defendant has to be seen.
CS No. 10712/2016 Sunil Anand Vs. Sukhpal Singh Page No. 11 of 2520.Defendant has examined himself as DW1. It is stated that he is the Director of EFactor Events India Pvt. Ltd. Defendant has stated that he has to take a balance amount of Rs.2.50 Lakhs from plaintiff for facilitating the marriage ceremony of the son of plaintiff on 28.01.2013 and 30.01.2013. DW1 has not disputed that there was an agreement for the event of Ghazal program by Sh. Pankaj Udhas. DW1 has stated that it was cancelled as plaintiff has not made the payment one week in advance. It is stated that Velvet Vices Pvt. Ltd. had intimated the defendant about the advance payment/ full payment of the Ghazal program vide email dated 17.01.2013 and this fact was intimated to the plaintiff by the defendant. It is stated that despite the intimation of cancellation of program, plaintiff made payment of Rs.3,50,000/ through RTGS on the day of event i.e., 28.01.2013. DW1 has stated that Ghazal programe was contracted for Rs.10 Lakhs plus Rs.3 Lakhs to facilitate the Ghazal program by providing light, sound, decoration on 28.01.2013. Defendant has stated that Rs.10 Lakhs was returned to the plaintiff in cash and Rs.3 Lakhs was returned through RTGS. Defendant had withheld Rs.50,000/ on account of facilities provided to the plaintiff. Defendant has further stated that air tickets booked by plaintiff were also returned, however, plaintiff has not returned two cheques of Rs.2 Lakhs and of CS No. 10712/2016 Sunil Anand Vs. Sukhpal Singh Page No. 12 of 25 Rs.1.80 Lakhs. Defendant has stated that he has to take balance amount of Rs.2.50 lakhs. Defendant has denied that plaintiff had printed and distributed the cards stating the event. It is stated that plaintiff had performed another program on 28.01.2013 by contracting another artist and the facilities were provided by the defendant. Defendant has denied that plaintiff had booked hotel rooms and main hall of the hotel for the team of Sh.Pankaj Udhas. Defendant has also denied the receiving of legal notice dated 26.07.2014. In this regard, defendant has stated that plaintiff has given false and frivolous notice.
21.During his crossexamination defendant admitted that he had received a notice dated 26.07.2014 Ex.PW1/2. DW1 has also admitted that air tickets were booked for Sh.Pankaj Udhas and his team. PW1 has also not disputed and has admitted that plaintiff had also booked hotel for this event. DW1 has also not disputed that Sh.Pankaj Udhas along with his team had to perform at hotel 'The Lalit'. DW1 also admitted that air tickets were booked on 24.01.2013.
22.DW1 stated that he had forwarded the email received from Velvet Voice, company of Sh.Pankaj Udhas, to plaintiff on 17.01.2013 that full and final payment was to be made CS No. 10712/2016 Sunil Anand Vs. Sukhpal Singh Page No. 13 of 25 immediately. DW1 has further stated that on the day of ring ceremony he had told plaintiff that Sh.Pankaj Udhas and his team were not coming. Plaintiff had called in the morning of 28.01.2013 asking defendant to make last effort to call Sh.Pankaj Udhas to perform the event and plaintiff also made payment of Rs.3.5 Lakhs through RTGS in the account of Zesty Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.
23. During his crossexamination DW1 has categorically stated that Rs.2 Lakhs in cash was given to Sh.Pankaj Udhas by him and after receiving this amount Sh.Pankaj Udhas had given confirmation for the program. DW1 has further stated that he used to take minimum 25% and maximum 50% advance payment, but for organizing program of Sh.Pankaj Udhas he used to take 100% advance. During crossexamination one hand written document Ex.DW1/PA was shown to the witness for which he admitted that writing at portion 'X' was in his own handwriting. Thus, execution of hand writing document is not disputed. DW1 has further stated that he did not receive any communication in writing that Sh.Pankaj Udhas was not coming.
24.From the evidence of DW1 certain facts have emerged which CS No. 10712/2016 Sunil Anand Vs. Sukhpal Singh Page No. 14 of 25 are as under :
(a) There was a contract for organizing the event of Sh.Pankaj Udhas is not disputed by defendant.
(b) The consideration amount so fixed for the event is disputed. Defendant says that it was Rs.10 lakhs plus Rs.3 Lakhs whereas plaintiff says that it was Rs.7 Lakhs. Document Ex.DW1/PA has not been disputed by defendant.
(c) Defendant has not disputed the fact that he had returned Rs.3 Lakhs by way of RTGS to the plaintiff. Defendant has also not disputed that plaintiff had made payment of Rs.3.50 lakhs by RTGS.
(d) Defendant had not furnished any reason in writing from the side of Sh.Pankaj Udhas that he was not coming for the event. It is stated that Sh.Pankaj Udhas had orally intimated to him. The reason for cancellation furnished by defendant is that advance payment was not made. Defendant however do not dispute that plaintiff had arranged air tickets, had booked hotel rooms and had made arrangement at hotel 'The Lalit'. If the event was CS No. 10712/2016 Sunil Anand Vs. Sukhpal Singh Page No. 15 of 25 cancelled one week before the date fixed then how and why defendant has received the payment from the plaintiff and had acknowledged the booking of air ticket and hotels. No explanation in this regard has been furnished by the defendant during his evidence
(e) Defendant has stated that he had intimated on 17.01.2013 itself by way of email to the plaintiff. One copy of such email is available on judicial record, though not tendered in evidence. If it is perused then it seems to have been sent on 28.01.2013 at 07:23 PM containing the subject 'confirmation letter for show to be held on 28.01.2013'. This email contains the reference of earlier email sent from Velvet Voices on 17.01.2013. Thus, this document do not corroborate with the fact alleged by the defendant that he had intimated the fact of cancellation of event to the plaintiff on 17.01.2013 itself. No documentary proof in this regard has been filed.
25. From the above discussion and the testimonies of both the parties it is reflected that there is no dispute that there was an agreement in between the plaintiff and defendant vide which defendant agreed to arrange an event by Sh. Pankaj Udhas on CS No. 10712/2016 Sunil Anand Vs. Sukhpal Singh Page No. 16 of 25 the occasion of marriage of son of plaintiff. Such event had not taken place is also not disputed. Now, the foremost and most important question required to be considered in order to determine the liability of the parties is to see as to who has caused the breach and whether such breach was deliberate on the part of one of the party.
26.In such circumstances, the law on the subject has to be discussed. There are various ways by which parties to a contract are said to be discharged. These are : i. Performance of a contract.
ii. By breach of contract.
iii. By frustration of contract.
27.When parties to a contract perform their part respectively then parties are said to be discharged by performance of their respective liabilities. When a breach takes place then also parties are said to be discharged and the party who is liable to cause breach is liable to compensate other as per Section 73 and 74 of the Contract Act. Breach is of two types. Actual breach and anticipatory breach. Actual breach is a breach which renders a contract the rescinded on the date of breach itself and the contract becomes void. Whereas, in an anticipatory breach CS No. 10712/2016 Sunil Anand Vs. Sukhpal Singh Page No. 17 of 25 the contract is void at the option of one party and voidable at the option of other party. Voidable means a party who has suffered the loss due to non performance of agreement by the other party and has two option either to keep the contract alive and valid and wait for its due date of performance or treat the anticipatory breach as actual breach and consider the contract as rescinded. Such party as per law has the remedy available under Section 73, 74 and 75 of the Contract Act to claim compensation and damages. Parties to a contract can also be said to be discharge by 'Doctrine of Frustration'.
28.One of the ground of discharge of parties by operation of 'Doctrine of Frustration' is that the contract is such which is dependent upon the personal capacity of the other party and such other person is incapable to perform due to the reason beyond his control. For example, a singer agrees to sing at a concert but on the day the event he fell ill. Such contract is of a personal nature which is always dependent upon the health of such singer. In such a case the parties are discharged by operation of 'Doctrine of Frustration' however, the party at loss i.e. the organizer can claim a resonable compensation. If such denial is deliberate or not due to third factor which is beyond the control of such singer then he is liable to pay special CS No. 10712/2016 Sunil Anand Vs. Sukhpal Singh Page No. 18 of 25 damages as well.
29. In the present case, it is not the defence of the defendant that any third factor has interplayed its role due to which event could not be organised. Neither there is any plea of 'Act of God' nor defendant has alleged that Sh. Pankaj Udhas was not able to perform due to reasons beyond his control like heavy rain, falling sick, natural calamities, accident etc.
30.From the testimony of the defendant, it is also reflected that when Sh.Pankaj Udhas had denied to perform, some other person was arranged for the event but he was not up to the mark as alleged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff however has not furnished any documentary proof to show that he had to cancel all the rooms and hall which were booked by him for the concert in the hotel 'The Lalit'. One thing however has emerged from these circumstances and not disputed by the defendant, as already stated above that Sh. Pankaj Udhas had not come to the event as per agreement. The only reason stated by the defendant is that advance payment was not made one week prior to the event. The conduct of defendant in this regard in itself is conspicuous as, if he was informed by Sh.Pankaj Udhas one week before the show that he was not coming then why did he CS No. 10712/2016 Sunil Anand Vs. Sukhpal Singh Page No. 19 of 25 acknowledge the booking of air ticket and received them as well. Defendant has also not explained by way of documentary evidence that he had intimated this fact to the plaintiff that Sh.Pankaj Udhas had cancelled the event. The email relied upon by the defendant, though not exhibiting the same and tendered in evidence, is also silent on this aspect. Plaintiff has categorically stated that he was not at all informed by the defendant that Sh. Pankaj Udhas was not coming to the event and he was merely informed of this fact on the date fixed for the event i.e., 28.01.2013.
31.Plaintiff in support of his contention has placed on record photocopies of the air tickets booked for the team of Sh. Pankaj Udhas. Plaintiff has also stated that he had booked hotel rooms and halls for the event which has not been controverted by the defendant. Defendant himself has stated that he has participated as even manager in the marriage function of the son of the plaintiff and some other artist was arranged for the event. This fact is substantiated from the submissions of the defendant himself that he is claiming that he has to recover from the plaintiff for the services rendered to him. Plaintiff however has not placed on record any documentary proof showing the actual amount spent on booking of rooms and hall at the hotel 'The CS No. 10712/2016 Sunil Anand Vs. Sukhpal Singh Page No. 20 of 25 Lalit' and loss incurred after their cancellation. In these circumstances, therefore no special damages can be allowed in the absence of any documentary proof for the actual loss suffered by the plaintiff. Plaintiff however has been able to prove certain facts that:
(a) Marriage of his son took place in January, 2013. This fact is not controverted by the defendant.
(b) Plaintiff had arranged for Sh. Pankaj Udhas Ghazal Night on the event of marriage of his son through defendant. This fact is also not disputed.
(c) Plaintiff had made certain payments to the defendant.
Plaintiff however have furnished documentary proof of Rs.3.5 Lakhs made through RTGS which is not disputed by the defendant.
(d) Plaintiff has also placed on record copy of the air tickets booked for the team of Sh. Pankaj Udhas, this fact is also not disputed.
(e) Marriage of the son of plaintiff took place in hotel 'The Lalit' is also not denied. Defendant himself had arranged certain events in the said marriage as alleged by him.
(f) Plaintiff was not informed in advance by the defendant that Sh. Pankaj Udhas is not coming for the event. Copy of the email dated 28.01.2013 substantiate this fact.
CS No. 10712/2016 Sunil Anand Vs. Sukhpal Singh Page No. 21 of 25(g) The reason furnished for cancellation of event was that the advance payment was not made by the plaintiff however, defendant has not supported this fact with documentary evidence as alleged by him that he intimated this fact to the plaintiff through email. Moreso, even after receiving the email from Sh. Pankaj Udhas on 17.01.2013, as alleged, he kept on meeting with plaintiff and also received copies of air ticket and part payment. All these facts reflects that conduct of defendant was suspicious.
(h) Cancellation of the event for the reason, presuming it for the sake of argument, that advance payment was not made, cannot be said to be fall under the 'Doctrine of Frustration'. There was neither any incapacity of Sh. Pankaj Udhas and his team nor it was such a reason which could be said to be beyond his control or attributed to act of god. At the most this could be said to be a commercial difficulties.
(i) In para nos. 4 and 5 of reply on merits of the written statement filed by the defendant, defendant himself has alleged that Ghazal program was contracted for Rs.10 Lakhs + Rs.3 Lakhs to facilitate the program by providing light, sound, decoration on 28.01.2013. Similar facts are CS No. 10712/2016 Sunil Anand Vs. Sukhpal Singh Page No. 22 of 25 stated in evidence by DW1. Thus, the total payment agreed to be made was Rs.13 Lakhs. Defendant has further stated at page No. 5 of his written statement that he returned Rs.10 Lakhs to the plaintiff and further returned Rs.3 Lakhs to the plaintiff through RTGS on 05.02.2013. Receiving of payment of Rs.3 Lakhs has not been denied by the plaintiff. Plaintiff has alleged during arguments that he made payment of Rs.15,83,000/ in total to the defendant. Defendant has stated that he returned Rs.10 Lakhs for which he has not furnished any evidence. Alleging this fact that payment has been returned, implies that defendant had received this amount from the plaintiff. Thus, it cannot be presumed that the said amount of Rs.10 Lakhs has been returned to the plaintiff unless and until supported with evidence from the side of defendant.
32. In the light of above findings, I am of the opinion that plaintiff has been able to discharge the burden of proving the fact that he has entered into an agreement with the defendant who was an Event Manager that he shall organise a cultural event of Sh.Pankaj Udhas Ghazal Night on the occasion of marriage of his son for which plaintiff had also made arrangement as per the CS No. 10712/2016 Sunil Anand Vs. Sukhpal Singh Page No. 23 of 25 requirement of the defendant and Sh. Pankaj Udhas by booking rooms and hall at hotel 'The Lalit' and booking air tickets for the team of Sh. Pankaj Udhas, as well as announcing amongst his relatives and guests that such an event was to be held on the occasion of the marriage of his son. Cancellation of such event would, in all probable circumstances, have caused mental pain and suffering as well as humiliation to the plaintiff before all his guests and relatives. Hence, plaintiff has been able to discharge the burden of proving this issue upon him.
33.RELIEF The outcome of above discussion is that plaintiff has been able to prove his case against the defendant. Rs.10 Lakhs have been admitted by the defendant having received by him. Another amount of Rs.3.5 Lakhs have been acknowledged by him having received through RTGS for which he has alleged that he returned Rs. 3 Lakhs through RTGS. Plaintiff has also placed on record copies of air tickets which were booked for Sh.Pankaj Udhas and his team. If this entire amount is calculated which is alleged to have been spent by plaintiff and if a reasonable amount for compensation for suffering of mental pain and agony by the plaintiff is also considered then, I deem it appropriate that quantification of the amount of Rs. 19 Lakhs as CS No. 10712/2016 Sunil Anand Vs. Sukhpal Singh Page No. 24 of 25 claimed by plaintiff by way of this suit is appropriate. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.19 Lakhs along with interest @12% from the date of filing of the suit till its realization along with costs of the suit.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room, after necessary legal formalities. Digitally signed by PRASHANT PRASHANT KUMAR KUMAR Date: 2019.10.15 17:07:13 +0530 Announced in the open court (PRASHANT KUMAR) on 15th October, 2019 ADJ01 : Central District Tis Hazari Court: Delhi CS No. 10712/2016 Sunil Anand Vs. Sukhpal Singh Page No. 25 of 25