M/S Rana Chairs vs Director General(Town Planning ) ...
2015 Latest Caselaw 7064 Del

$~18
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                            Date of Decision: 17.09.2015
+     CS(OS) 1090/2013
      M/S RANA CHAIRS
                                                              ..... Plaintiff
                         Through:      Mr. Dharmendra Sharma, Adv.

                         versus

      DIRECTOR GENERAL(TOWN PLANNING ) KOLKATTA
      MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR
                                            ..... Defendant
                   Through: Ex parte

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

      NAJMI WAZIRI, J. (Open Court)

      1.

This is a suit for recovery of Rs.50,83,155/- (Rupees Fifty Lacs Eight-Three Thousand One Hundred Fifty-Five only) alongwith pendent lite and future interest @ 18% per annum as well as costs of the suit.

2. It is the plaintiff's case that for the supply and fixing of 750 Auditorium Chairs in Sarat Sadan, Behata, an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and the defendants on 10.02.2010. The notice inviting tenders and the agreement have been exhibited as Exhibits PW1/A, PW1/C and PW1/D respectively. The goods were consigned by the plaintiff and delivered to the defendants vide consignments notes exhibits PW1/H and PW1/I. The

acknowledgment of receipt of the chairs is Ex. PW1/L (colly). The chairs had to be installed at Sarat Sadan, Behata, however, they could not be installed there at the instance of the defendants. Thereafter, vide letter dated 23.02.2011 [Mark O], the defendants requested the plaintiff to install the said chairs at Uttam Manch in Calcutta. While the chairs were in the custody of the defendants, they were damaged in a fire. Nevertheless, prior to the damage, the plaintiff had raised invoice nos. 55 & 56 both dated 22.02.2010 for a total sum of Rs.33,00,750/- for payment against the supply of chairs.

3. There has been no response from the defendants to the bills/invoices raised by the plaintiff except for a termination letter issued on 17.04.2013 stating that the quality of the chairs was not up to the mark and there were defects in the chairs supplied. This letter was issued more than three years after the supply of the chairs to the defendants.

4. It is the plaintiff's case that had the chairs been defective, it was for the defendants to have so intimated to the plaintiff. The letter dated 17.04.2013 is nothing but an afterthought and an endeavour to escape the liability which has already been admitted by the defendants by way of receipt of the goods. Indeed, the defendants themselves had requested the installation of the chairs at Uttam Manch in Calcutta instead of Sarat Sadan, Behata.

5. The defendants proceeded ex-parte on 27.05.2014.

6. The plaintiff had led ex-parte evidence through the proprietor Mr. Anil Kumar Sachdeva who has deposed in lines with the averments made in the plaint.

7. The plaintiff's case is unrebutted.

8. This Court is of the view that there is nothing on record which could suggest that the prayers sought in the plaint could not be granted. The acknowledgement of the chairs by the defendants is not rebutted; their request for installation of the chairs at Sarat Sadan, Behata, is acknowledgement of the acceptable and good quality of the chairs. The letter of 17.04.2013 is evidently an afterthought and an endeavour by the defendants to escape the acknowledged liability to pay the monies payable to the plaintiffs as a consequence of the supply of the chairs as per the bills raised. Accordingly, the suit is decreed in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of the plaint. A cost of Rs. 1.00 lac also is imposed upon the defendants towards this litigation. Decree sheet be drawn up accordingly.

NAJMI WAZIRI, J SEPTEMBER 17, 2015/acm