Delhi District Court
M/S. Sidhartha Enterprises vs Ami India Logistics P. Ltd on 10 September, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS.RICHA PARIHAR, CIVIL JUDGE06 (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CS no. 390/10/04
Unique Case ID No.02401C5118912004
In the matter of:
M/s. Sidhartha Enterprises,
Through, Sidhartha Sharma,
ED72C, Pitampura, New Delhi ................Plaintiff
Versus
1.AMI India Logistics P. Ltd.
Through Mrs. Padma Lal(Director), Head Office, at 101, B&C, Jolly Bhawan, No. 2, 7, New Marine Lines, Church Gate, Mumbai20, India
2. AMI India Logistics P. Ltd., Sh. K. Unnikrishnan, (Manager Finance), (Branch Office), 15141515, Ansal Tower, 38, Nehru Place, New Delhi ........ Defendants DATE OF INSTITUTION : 17.05.2004 DATE OF RESERVING JUDGMENT : 16.08.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.09.2012 CS 390/10/04 1/7 Exparte Judgment This is suit for recovery of Rs.1,18,800/ (One lac eighteen thousand eight hundred only)
1. Brief facts of the case are that : Plaintiff was a proprietorship concern and has filed the present suit through its proprietor, Sh. Siddharth Sharma.
Plaintiff was running a business of exports for last many years. The defendants have their head office at Mumbai and the branch office at Delhi and Shri Unikrishnan is the manager finance of the same. Defendants are the carriers having their own shipping line / fleet and having agents who carry out the work of clearing and forwarding of cargo / consignment of exports.
On 4.04.2001, plaintiff entrusted two consignment of goods to the defendants at their office at New Delhi, which were destined to the respective buyers of the plaintiff at Malawi. The consignment was dispatched on 4.04.2001 in the container bearing no.GLDU 0344286/20. The two consignments were valued at US Dollar 2763.30 and US Dollar 10475 respectively inclusive of prepaid freight charges.
The freight charges were already prepaid by plaintiff to the defendant at New Delhi in pursuance of two bills of lading being no. 0400062 and 0400072 duly reflecting the prepaid freight charges inclusive of ocean freight and inland haulage CS 390/10/04 2/7 prepaid as well as the rail charges paid and the same were duly issued by defendant no.2 on behalf of defendant no.1 and an amount of Rs.1,32,260/ was paid by plaintiff to the defendants as freight charges and the receipt of the same was duly issued by defendants to the plaintiff dated 21.04.2001.
On 30.04.2001, plaintiff received a tele fax from the defendant whereby the defendants illegally asked for extra payment of Rs.48,144/ for which the defendants raised a debit note of same date i.e 21.04.2001 knowing fully well that the charges for the freight has already been paid by the plaintiff amounting to Rs.1,32,260/.
Plaintiff further submits that the defendants threatened the plaintiff that if the additional amount of Rs. 48144/ is not paid by plaintiff to the defendant then the defendants shall withhold the shipments of the plaintiff. That the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 21.05.2001 to the defendants stating that the demand of Rs 48,144/ by defendant is unreasonable and illegal. Instead of replying to the said legal notice of plaintiff, defendants continued to raise their illegal demand and finally the plaintiff under pressure and to save his image before his buyers and to ensure that his consignments reached the end destination at Malawi in time, had to pay an extra amount of Rs.18,800/ to defendants through a bank draft.
It is the case of plaintiff that the said amount of Rs.18,800/ has been illegally taken by defendants from plaintiff and that the consignment of plaintiff has CS 390/10/04 3/7 reached the end destination after the delay of 31 days. Thus, plaintiff has suffered huge monetary loss as well as his image was also tarnished in the eyes of his buyers. Plaintiff thereafter issued another legal notice dated 26.01.2004 to his counsel whereby plaintiff called upon the defendants to pay back the amount of Rs. 18,800/ which is legally due to the plaintiff and was taken illegally by the defendants herein from the plaintiff and also claimed for an amount of Rs.1,00,000/ from the defendants for mental pain and agony and for tarnishing the image of the plaintiff along with the interest @ 24 % p.a., the said notice was duly served upon the defendants but no reply has been issued by the defendants to plaintiff.
Thus, the plaintiff prays for following relief: "Prayer:
a) a decree in the sum of Rs.1,18,800/ (Rupees one lac eighteen thousand eight hundred only) be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants holding them liable for the payment of the decretal amount;
b) That also, an interest on the amount of Rs.1,18,800/ @ 24 % p.a from 24.05.2001 i.e the date when the amount was under pressure given by the plaintiff to the defendants and when the plaintiff's image was tarnished in the eyes of his buyers apart from mental pain and agony suffered by the plaintiff be awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants when the said amount accrued in favour of the plaintiff;
c) That pendent elite and future interest @ 24 % p.a be awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization.
CS 390/10/04 4/7
d) That the cost of the suit be also awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants;
e) Any other relief or order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants and prayed accordingly."
2. The defendants were served by way of registered post on 5.06.2004.
As none appeared on behalf of defendant, they were proceeded ex parte vide order dated 4.09.2004.
3. The plaintiff led his ex parte evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex.PW1/A. The plaintiff has relied upon Ex.PW1/1 which is the certificate from Vijaya Bank showing that Sh. Siddharth Sharma is the proprietor of the plaintiff firm. Ex.PW1/2 and Ex.PW1/3 are the invoices along with the packaging list, bills of lading are Ex.PW1/4 and Ex.PW1/5.
Ex.PW1/7 according to the plaintiff is the telefax sent by defendant to plaintiff illegally demanding Rs. 18,800/ from plaintiff.
The legal notice dated 21.05.2001 is Ex.PW1/9 and postal receipts are Ex.PW1/10 to Ex.PW1/12, letter dated 24.05.2001 is Ex.PW1/13. Legal notice dated 26.01.2004 is Ex.PW1/14 and postal receipts are Ex.PW1/15 to Ex.PW1/19.
4. I have heard the counsel for plaintiff and carefully perused the record.
As per plaint, the cause of action arose on 4.04.2001 when the plaintiff entrusted CS 390/10/04 5/7 the consignment to defendant. Thereafter the cause of action arose on 24.05.2001 when the amount of Rs. 18,800/ was paid by plaintiff to defendant on account of his illegal demand. Cause of action again arose when the legal notice dated 21.05.2001 was sent by plaintiff to defendant and the cause of action again arose when the plaintiff sent a legal demand notice dated 26.04.2004 to defendant.
The plaintiff has not filed any document to show as to what were the terms and the conditions of agreement between plaintiff and defendant. Ex. PW1/6 is the receipt however same does not show that the amount of Rs. 1,32,260/ was the complete payment by plaintiff inclusive of freight charges and that there was nothing remain to be paid by plaintiff to defendant.
Affidavit of the plaintiff mentions that plaintiff received a tele fax transmission form from defendant illegally demanding from plaintiff Rs. 48,144/ which is Ex.PW1/7. However no such document placed on record by plaintiff despite being mentioned in the affidavit. The said telfax transmission form do no find any mention in the list of documents filed by the plaintiff.
The debit note raised by the defendant is 21.04.2001 is Ex.PW1/8. However, it does not mention the circumstances or the nature of transaction in which the said debit note was raised by defendant against plaintiff from Ex. PW1/8 it appears that there were some other/extra charges which remain to be paid by plaintiff on the CS 390/10/04 6/7 basis of which defendant raised the said debit note.
From the invoices placed on record, it can not be concluded that Rs.18,800/ was paid by plaintiff to defendant owing to the illegal demand of defendant. Allegations in plaint are not proved by way of the documentary evidence placed on record by plaintiff. To my mind the plaint does not disclose any cause of action and plaintiff is not entitled to any relief.
Suit is dismissed for no cause of action.
No orders as to cost.
Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
File be consigned to record room as per rules.
Announced in open court on this day of 10 September, 2012.
th (Richa Parihar) CJ06, Central 10.09.2012 Certified that it bears seven (7) pages signed by me.
(Richa Parihar) CJ06, Central 10.09.2012 CS 390/10/04 7/7