Delhi District Court
Gandhi Hospital vs Smt. Pushpa Jha on 19 January, 2023
Suit No.180/2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. DIVYANG THAKUR,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE- 03 (SOUTH
WEST), DWARKA, DELHI.
Civil Suit No. 180/2019
CNR No. DLSW01-002660-2019
In the matter of :
Gandhi Hospital
(A Unit of Pawan Gandhi Health
Care Private Limited)
Through its Director / A.R.
Dr. Pawan Gandhi
At : C-50 & 51, Om Vihar,
Uttam Nagar, Delhi - 110059
........Plaintiff
Versus
Smt. Pushpa Jha
W/o Sh. Prabhudhar Jha
R/o RZ-E/31, 2nd Floor,
Dwarkapuri, New Delhi ......Defendant
Date of institution of the suit : 25.02.2019
Final Arguments Heard on : 24.05.2022
Date of Judgment : 19.01.2023
Decision : Ex parte Decreed
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for recovery of Rs.48,74,684/-
Gandhi Hospital vs Pushpa Jha Page 1 of 11 Suit No.180/2019 alongwith pendente-lite interest @ 18% per annum.
2. The case of the plaintiff as discernible from the plaint of this suit and the documents filed along with the plaint of this suit is that plaintiff is a unit of Pawan Gandhi Health Care Pvt. Ltd. and Dr. Pawan Gandhi, being the owner and Director of the plaintiff is looking after the affairs of the plaintiff with his wife Smt. Bindhu Gandhi, who is also one of the Co-director of plaintiff hospital alongwith his daughter Dr. Mansi Gandhi, who is a Cardiologist, working with Heart Institute of Delhi. Ld. counsel for plaintiff has further averred that the plaintiff has filed FIR bearing no.806/2018 P.S. Bindapur against the defendant and her son Pukar Jha u/s.381/467/420/477-A/34 IPC and the property bearing no.RZD-3/64, Vinod Puri, Vijay Enclave, Delhi - 110045 has been purchased by the defendant from the illegal money which was siphoned off from the plaintiff's bank account bearing no.2019201004480 with Canara Bank, Raja Garden Branch. Ld. counsel for the plaintiff has also averred that in the end of the year 2014, Mr. Pukar Jha, son of Prabhudhar Jha and Pushpa Jha (defendant herein) approached the plaintiff as there was a vacancy in the hospital for the post of Accountant and employed him. It is further averred that the plaintiff hired Sh. O.P.Sharma, Advocate Gandhi Hospital vs Pushpa Jha Page 2 of 11 Suit No.180/2019 as its professional retainer for the purpose of handling and preparing each employee's monthly roll and salary sheets and the job of Pukar Jha was to tally and match the salary sheets sent by Sh. O.P.Sharma and to make salary dispersal sheet from it and to cross check entries therein and point out discrepancies. The plaintiff trusted the dispersal sheets made by Pukar Jha as it was specifically his job to do so and the co-Directors Dr. Pawan Gandhi or Mrs. Bindu Gandhi of their daughter, as the case may be, used to sign the salary cheque of the consolidated amount of full month salary of all the employees which corresponded to the amount mentioned in the dispersal sheet. Thereafter the dispersal sheet used to be sent to the Bank alongwith the cheque of the consolidated amount so that the salary from the consolidated amount of each and every employee mentioned in the dispersal sheet is transferred to their respective accounts and alongwith such cheque, the instructions on the letter pad of the plaintiff was sent bearing the signatures of the Authorised Signatories of the plaintiff to the bank so as to disperse the cheque amount in the individual accounts of each employee. The whole set containing one cheque of the consolidated amount alongwith authorization and dispersal sheet was sent through Pukar Jha to the bank. It is Gandhi Hospital vs Pushpa Jha Page 3 of 11 Suit No.180/2019 further averred that the plaintiff had instructed the bank not to disperse the salary in the respective accounts of the employees unless the same is signed by Authorised Signatories to the account of Gandhi Hospital. It is further averred that plaintiff got to know that the original dispersal sheets on many occasions, have been changed by Pukar Jha by making false and fabricated dispersal sheets and he has made forged entries in the name of his mother Pushpa Jha (defendant herein), Reema, Alok, Anand and Arun by showing them the employees of Gandhi Hospital and this way, he had forged entries an siphoned off with the money. It is further averred that in the year 2015-16, the rates of mediclaim etc. to the various hospitals were increased and thereafter again, in the same year, the plaintiff took many eminent Government panels such as DGHS, DSCS, DVB, DMRC, BSES, CGHS due to which the quantum of work increased and there was an acute rise in revenue of the hospital and due to the same, the plaintiff increased the strength of employees and working staff, so it was difficult to point out any pilferage at that time. Due to the change in regulations and also due to procuring new esteemed panels etc. the upgradation of the hospital was conspicuously required and the plaintiff incurred expenses for such purpose to the tune of Gandhi Hospital vs Pushpa Jha Page 4 of 11 Suit No.180/2019 approximately six crores for the purpose of providing in-house facilities and for that purpose, he had purchased medical equipment and machinery such as Cath Lab (known as Charak Cardiac Centre), CCU, ICU, Ultra Sound, X-Ray and Pathology Lab and Dialysis Centre and have also opened a Blood Bank and also bought the license of pharmacy and opened an in-house pharmacy in the hospital and also made huge investments in running and upkeep of costly stocks and life-saving drugs and equipment to run the abovesaid units. At that point of time, when there was increased revenue and also so much expenditure was made for upgradation purpose, it was factually difficult for the plaintiff to know about the siphoning of money made by abovesaid mode by Pukar Jha. It is further averred that in the year 2017,when even after such huge investments and increased revenue, when there was a persistent shortage of funds, the plaintiff tried to trace the pilferage and even contacted his Chartered Accountant but could not imagine that a person of such profile/designation, who has been employed merely for the purpose of accounting and sundry jobs etc. and whom they trust the most could siphon off the money in the name of himself and his mother. It is pertinent to mention here that Sh. Pukar Jha was Gandhi Hospital vs Pushpa Jha Page 5 of 11 Suit No.180/2019 initially employed at a salary of Rs. 12,000/- per month in the year 2015 and thereafter his salary was increased to Rs.16,000/- per month in the year 2016 and thereafter his last drawn gross salary was Rs.20,000/- but the transactions in his bank account and his mother's bank account clearly revealed that he had been drawing 10 times his actual salary and and in many transactions, he has put the salary 10 times his own and his mother's actual salary and that too twice, for each month and also by showing his mother as the employee of the hospital, had been transferring money on account of salary to her account though she was never an employee of the plaintiff hospital. It is further averred that FIR bearing no.806/2018 was lodged against Sh. Pukar Jha and also against his mother Pushpa Jha as co-accused and after investigation, it was found that an amount of Rs.41 lakhs (in various installments) had been transferred by the defendant from her bank account bearing no.5869101000685 with Canara Bank, Raja Garden Branch, as consideration for purchase of the property bearing no.RZD-3/64, Vinod Puri, Vijay Enclave, Delhi- 110045 from the siphoned off money to the bank account of one Mrs. Amita W/o Bhupinder Singh R/o RZ 26/P/36 Indira Park, Palam Colony, Delhi. It is further averred that after due investigation about whereabouts of Gandhi Hospital vs Pushpa Jha Page 6 of 11 Suit No.180/2019 Ms. Amita, it came to the knowledge of the plaintiff that she had just sold the property and she has nothing to do with the illegally begotten money by the defendant as she had sold the property in good faith to the defendant by executing requisite documents. Ms. Amita had handed over all the documents related to the property to the defendant and her son Pukar Jha. The seller of the property was identified as Prabhudhar Jha (husband of defendant herein), who had also made some cash transactions for the purchase of property. It is further averred that co-accused Prabhudhar Jha applied for anticipatory bail and was given interim protection till date 05.10.2018 and thereafter on 22.10.2018, his application for anticipatory bail was rejected by the court of Sh. Vikas Dhull, the then ld. ASJ, Delhi. The defendant was absconding all this while and was residing with her husband and her son in Kolkata from where her husband was arrested on 17.11.2018 and thereafter, his bail application was rejected by Sh. Kishor Kumar, Ld. MM vide order dated 14.12.2018. The bail of Prabhudhar Jha was allowed (which is under challenge u/s.439(2) CrPC and pending in the court of Sh. Vikas Dhull, the then Ld. ASJ, Delhi). In the said order dated 14.12.2018, the Hon'ble Court had categorically pointed out the sealing of the property and making that a case Gandhi Hospital vs Pushpa Jha Page 7 of 11 Suit No.180/2019 property. Thereafter, the said property was sealed as case property by the IO on 27.11.2018. It is also averred that the defendant, in connivance with her son had begotten the amount of Rs.38,74,684/- by showing herself as the employee of the plaintiff and defendant is liable to return the said amount to the plaintiff alongwith interest and compensation etc.
3. A perusal of the Court file reveals that upon filing of this suit for recovery of Rs.48,74,684/- the summons for appearance were issued vide order of this Court dated 05.03.2019. As observed by this Court in order dated 14.03.2019, summons of appearance were duly served and Prabhudhar Jha had appeared alongwith ld. counsel Sh. Manoj Kumar, who had filed his vakalatnama on behalf of defendant. Thereafter, matter was adjourned to 23.04.2019 for filing of written statement but the same was not filed. Therafter on 06.08.2019, Prabhudhar Jha again entered his appearance but as the defendant Pushpa Jha failed to appear in the court from three consecutive dates, she was proceeded ex parte by the then ld. Predecessor of this court and her right to file written statement was closed and thereafter, the matter was adjourned for ex parte plaintiff's evidence.
On 20.04.2022, plaintiff was examined as PW-1 and Gandhi Hospital vs Pushpa Jha Page 8 of 11 Suit No.180/2019 discharged. Thereafter, on 24.05.2022, an application for re- examination of PW-1 was moved on the ground that some documents were left to be exhibited, which was allowed. PW-1 tendered his additional affidavit and was discharged. Thereafter, final arguments were heard and the matter was put up for orders. Therefore, I have decided the case on the basis of the record placed before me.
8. The sole plaintiff witness reiterated the pleadings in the plaint. His testimony in this regard was unchallenged as the defendant did not appear before this court or through counsel and was declared to be ex parte. Therefore, the allegations that the defendant alongwith her son Pukar Jha entered into conspiracy to siphon off the funds by forging the salary disbursal slips stands proved. There is no reason to doubt the testimony adduced on behalf of the plaintiff. The documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff also corroborates the pleadings of the plaintiff. The statement of account proved as Ex.PW-1/6, which is the bank account statement of the defendant would show that salary was being received on a monthly basis, however as pleaded the defendant was never a employee of the plaintiff hospital. On a perusal of the statement of account, I also find that the salary Gandhi Hospital vs Pushpa Jha Page 9 of 11 Suit No.180/2019 being deposited in the account of the defendant in March of 2015 was around Rs.24,974/- but very curiously, why the salary being deposited for the month of December 2016 was Rs.40,000/-, the salary for the month of January 2017 as per the statement of account was Rs.1,40,000/- which increased to Rs.1,90,000/- in the month of April 2018. The said unexplained increase in salary of the defendant can only be explained by the version as put forward by the plaintiffs that the son of the defendant, Pukar Jha, who was the employee which is also corroborated by Ex.PW-1/4, which is the appointment letter issued to Pukar Jha, had forged the disbursal sheets resulting in salary being deposited in the account of the defendant, even though she was not the employee of the plaintiff hospital. The present suit had to be proved on a preponderance of probabilities. I find that the plaintiff has led sufficient evidence to prove his case and is therefore, entitled for the recovery of Rs.38,74,684/-, which is the sum siphoned off and deposited in the bank account of the defendant. In so far as the sum of Rs.10,00,000/- on account of compensation is concerned, I do not find that any evidence has been led on behalf of the plaintiff for proving such quantum of damages. I am of the opinion that a decree for the recovery of the sum siphoned off and Gandhi Hospital vs Pushpa Jha Page 10 of 11 Suit No.180/2019 deposited alongwith interest would be sufficient in the interest of justice.
10. However, in respect of the claim of interest claimed by the plaintiff with respect to prelitigation interest @ 18% per annum, the same is on the higher side. However, pendentelite interest @ 8% per annum would satisfy the cause of justice and which interest would accrue from the date of filing of suit till the date of present decree.
RELIEF
12. Thus, as a net result of the aforesaid, this suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant, for a sum of Rs. 38,74,684/- alongwith costs of the suit in favour of the plaintiff as well as pendentelite interest at the rate of 8% per annum from date of filing of suit till date of present decree. Decree Sheet be drawn up accordingly.
13. After preparation of the decree sheet by the Reader, the file shall be consigned to the Record Room.
Digitally signed by DIVYANG DIVYANG THAKUR THAKUR Date: 2023.01.18 20:08:58 +0530 Announced in the open court (Sh. Divyang Thakur) On 19.01.2023 ADJ-03/South West Dwarka / New Delhi 19.01.2023 Gandhi Hospital vs Pushpa Jha Page 11 of 11