HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN
CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL No.274 OF 2001
JUDGMENT:
1. This appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 29.10.1999 passed in O.S.No.55 of 1989 on the file of the IV Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein and whereby the claim made by the plaintiff was partly allowed, granting Rs.77,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the decree and at the rate of 6% per annum till the date of realisation on the above amount.
2. The appellants are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff. For brevity, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the trial Court.
3. The facts germane for consideration in this appeal are that the plaintiff is the dealer in electrical motor pumps and on the order placed by the defendants, he supplied electrical motor pumps to various beneficiaries and the total cost of electrical pumps supplied to the beneficiaries was Rs.5,15,225.20 Ps. Out of which, the defendants paid Rs.4,33,755/- and the defendants are due to pay the value of 14 electrical pumps, which were supplied to the beneficiaries belong to Borraipalem and Z.V.Guda Villages of Nalgonda District. In spite of several reminders, the defendants did not pay the balance amount. Hence, the present suit.
2
4. The defendants filed their written statement admitting their placing orders for supply of electrical pumps to the beneficiaries. According to them, the claim of 14 pumps by the plaintiff cannot be given on account of mis-matching the signatures of the beneficiaries. They also stated that according to the acknowledgement, the motors were lifted by one Sevalal and it is not known who has taken the pumps actually and supplied to the beneficiaries. It is also pleaded that as per the understanding, the price to be paid was only Rs.5,500/- per pump. They claimed that the plaintiff is not entitled for any amount since he has not established the pumps were supplied to the beneficiaries.
5. Basing on the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed by the trial Court:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim the suit amount from the defendants ?
2. To what relief ?
6. In support of his case, the plaintiff examined P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A10. On behalf of the defendants, D.W.1 is examined and no document was marked.
7. The trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record, found that the cost of each electrical motor which was agreed by the defendants was only Rs.5,500/- per pump and the cost of 14 electrical pumps at Rs.77,000/- was awarded with interest as stated herein before. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and Decree, the present appeal has been filed by the defendants.
8. Heard both sides.
3
9. The point for consideration is:
1) "Whether the trial Court committed error in granting part of the money decree" ?2) To what relief ?
10. The facts which are not in dispute are that there was supply order from the defendants for supply of electrical pumps to the beneficiaries identified by them. The dispute is with regard to 14 electrical pumps supplied to the beneficiaries of Borraipalem and Z.V.Guda Villages of Miryalaguda Taluq, Nalgonda District. According to the plaintiff, he supplied 14 electrical pumps to the beneficiaries and he obtained acknowledgement showing delivery of the pumps and the same was forwarded to the defendants.
11. The case of the defendants is that on verification of the signatures forwarded by the plaintiff, with the signatures attested by the Block Development Officer, they found that those signatures are mis-matching and therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to get back the pump sets from the beneficiaries.
12. Absolutely, there is no evidence from the defendants to show that who actually compared the signatures and whether on noticing the mis-matching of signatures, any enquiry has been made to show whether the plaintiff actually supplied the electrical pumps to the beneficiaries. The assumption of the defendants is unsupported by any material. Further, the defendants have not examined the officer who examined the signatures furnished by the plaintiff with the signatures obtained by the Block Development Officer. In the absence of 4 said evidence, it cannot be said that the plaintiff cannot claim the amount and the plaintiff has not supplied the electrical pumps to the beneficiaries. The trial Court rightly appreciated the evidence and this Court finds no errors in the impugned judgment.
11. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. The Miscellaneous petitions pending if any shall stand closed.
________________ M.LAXMAN, J.
Date: 15.11.2021.
Shr 5 THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.LAXMAN CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO.274 OF 2001 Date: 15.11.2021.
Shr.