M/S. Videocon Industries Ltd. vs M/S. Audio-Vision (India)
2014 Latest Caselaw 3645 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                  Order delivered on: August 11, 2014

+                               CS(OS) No.1022/2010

        M/s. Videocon Industries Ltd.             ..... Plaintiff
                        Through Mr.M.L. Sharma, Adv.

                          versus

        M/s. Audio-Vision (India)                      ..... Defendant
                         Through      None

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. This is a suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for a sum of Rs.20,91,720/- alongwith pendente lite and future interest. The defendant is ex-parte by order dated 7th May, 2012.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff is the manufacturer and seller of various kinds of electronic and electric products. Defendant No.1 is the proprietary concern of defendant No.2 who is engaged in the business of sales and purchase of various electronics and electric items.

3. It is the case of the plaintiff that defendant No.2 approached the plaintiff to sell its products to the defendants on credit basis in the name of defendant No.1 to which the plaintiff agreed. Pursuant

thereto a credit account was opened by the defendants with the New Delhi branch of the plaintiff in the name of defendant No.1.

4. During the course of business, plaintiff supplied goods to defendants against invoices-cum-challans which were delivered to and received by the defendants without any grievance or objections from the defendants. As per the statement of accounts Rs.20,91,720/- became due to be paid by the defendants to plaintiff uptil 30th July, 2008.

5. After approached the defendants from time to time to get the payments and failing to receive the same, the plaintiff got a Legal Notice dated 14th January, 2010 served upon the defendants. Legal notice addressed to defendant No.1 was received back with the remarks that the shop was found closed. Legal notice addressed to defendant No.2 was received back with the remarks "refused".

6. Aggrieved thereof the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 20,91,720/- against the defendants with interest @ 24% p.a. in lieu of damages from the date it fell due to the date of realization.

7. The suit was listed before Court on 19th May, 2010 when summons were issued to the defendants in the suit. Process sent to both the defendants had returned unserved on two occasions. The Court directed to issue fresh summons through all modes prescribed under CPC.

8. Though the defendant No.2 was served with summons on 4th May, 2011, as per record, on 25th May, 2011, no written statement

was filed nor anyone appeared on his behalf. Summons sent to defendant No.1 returned unserved. Despite of repeated service of summons, which returned unserved until 3rd December, 2011 when fresh summons sent to defendant No.1 were served by way of affixation at the residential address of proprietor of defendant No.1, neither of the defendants appeared nor any written statement was filed. In view thereof the defendants were proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 7th May, 2012.

9. In the evidence, the plaintiff proved the facts stated in the plaint by evidence by way of affidavit of Mr. Manoj Monga, Branch Accountant of the plaintiff as Ex. PW-1/X, and also exhibited certain documents exhibited as Ex. P-1/1 to Ex. P-1/7 in support of its case. The same are as follows:

      General Power of Attorney, exhibited as Ex PW-1/1
      Customer Ledger, exhibited as Ex PW-1/2
      Outer Cover of the Envelope containing legal demand
       notice, exhibited as Ex PW-1/3
      Outer Cover of the Envelope containing legal demand
       notice, exhibited as Ex PW-1/4
      Legal notice dated 14th January, 2010, exhibited as Ex PW-

      Invoices-cum-orders-challans      pertaining    to     Electrolux,
       exhibited as Ex PW-1/6
      Invoices-cum-orders-challans       pertaining    to       Hyundai,
       exhibited as Ex PW-1/7

10. The ex-parte evidence of the plaintiff was closed on 29th January, 2014. The evidence filed by the plaintiff has gone unrebutted as no cross-examination of the plaintiff's witness was carried out; therefore, the statements made by the plaintiff are accepted as correct deposition. Under these facts and circumstances, plaintiff is entitled for a decree for recovery for a sum of Rs.20,91,720/- alongwith pendent lite and future interest. The decree for interest at rate of 10% is also passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants from the date of filing of suit till the date of payment. The plaintiff is also entitled for costs of proceedings.

11. The decree be drawn accordingly. The suit is disposed of.

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE AUGUST 11, 2014