Madras High Court
Padmanabhan vs Vipulmedcorp Insurance Tpa Private Ltd on 7 February, 2025
Author: N. Sathish Kumar
Bench: N. Sathish Kumar
A.S..No.49 of 2022
THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Date :07.02.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N. SATHISH KUMAR
A.S.No.49 of 2022 & CMP.No.2010 of 2022 &
CMP.No.10289 of 2022
1. Padmanabhan
2. P.Manikandan ... Appellants
Versus
VipulMedCorp Insurance TPA Private Ltd.,
[Formerly Vipul Medcrop TPA Private Limited]
Chennai Branch, No.407 & 408, 2nd Floor, G.R.Complex,
Anna Salai, Nandanam, Cehnnai – 600 035. ... Respondent
PRAYER : This Appeal Suit has been filed under section 96 of Code of Civil
Procedure to set aside the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1843 of 2017
vide Order dated 23.10.2019 on the file of the XVI Additional City Civil
Court, Chennai.
For Appellants : Mr.R.Subramanian
For Respondent : S.Venkata Krishna Kumar
Page 1 / 10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 03:58:22 pm )
A.S..No.49 of 2022
JUDGMENT
Challenge has been made against the decree and judgment of the trial
Court decreeing the suit for recovery of the balance of the advance amount
paid by the plaintiff.
2. The parties are arrayed as per their own ranking before the trial
Court.
3. The brief background of the case is as follows :
The plaintiff was inducted as a tenant under the defendant as per the
agreement dated 25.12.2012 on a monthly rent of Rs.95,000/-. At the time of
lease, interest free advance of Rs.9 lakhs has been paid to the defendant. The
lease is for a period of 9 years. The plaintiff has informed the defendant that
he would vacate the premises on 31.05.2015 vide their letter dated 18.05.2015
and also called upon the defendant to return the advance amount. The
defendant promised to refund the said amount within a short period and paid
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 03:58:22 pm )
only a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- by way of cheque dated 25.06.2015 and remaining
amount of Rs.7 lakhs has not been paid. Even after repeated demands, the
amount has not been paid. Hence, the suit for recovery of the balance amount.
4. The contention raised by the defendants in their written statement is
that the plaintiff had not maintained the subject premises with proper care and
had caused severe damages to the subject property taken on lease by them.
The floors were broken, ceilings were damaged, electrical connections were
tampered beyond repair, damaged the toilets beyond repair, walls being
defaced. The defendant has never promised to pay a sum of Rs.7 lakhs.
According to the defendants, as per the letter dated 18.12.2015, they are
entitled to hold that amount towards recovery of expenses incurred by the
defendant. Further, the plaintiff all of a sudden vacated the premises without
even prior notice as contained in the lease deed. The defendant had spent a
sum of Rs.5 lakhs in respect of the damages caused by the plaintiff to the
subject premises for repainting and replaced the entire electrical wiring and
fittings. Hence, the building has not been let out to any one. Hence, opposed
the suit.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 03:58:22 pm )
5. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues have been
framed :
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of
Rs.10,08,000/- with interest?
2. To what other relief the plaintiff is entitled for?
6. On the side of the plaintiff, the Branch Manager of the plaintiff's
company has been examined as P.W.1 and Ex.A.1 to A.14 have been marked.
On the side of the defendants, the first defendant has been examined as D.W.1
and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.7 have been marked.
7. The trial considering the entire evidence and documents filed by both
the parties, has decreed the suit. Challenging the same, the present appeal has
been filed.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that
the trial Court has not appreciated the documents filed on the side of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 03:58:22 pm )
defendants to prove the damages. Further the nature of the damages pleaded in
the written statement has not been denied properly and his evidence is also not
denied. Only in that context, a sum of Rs.2 lakhs has been returned after the
plaintiff has vacated the premises. The trial Court, without considering all
these aspects, has decreed the suit for the remaining amount. According to
him, the finding of the trial Court is not valid in the eye of law.
9. Whereas, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent would
contend that the damages as pleaded in the written statement has not been
established and Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.7 have been obtained after the filing of this suit
and hence, the same has not been proved. Hence, prayed for dismissal of this
appeal.
10. In the light of the above submissions, now the points that arise for
consideration are
1. Whether the defendant has established the damages to
the tune of Rs.5,25,000/- as pleaded in the written statement.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 03:58:22 pm )
2. Whether the plaintiff is not entitled to claim refund of
advance amount?
11. Points 1 & 2 :
The fact that the plaintiff was inducted as a tenant on 25.05.2012 on a
monthly rent of Rs.95,000/- is not disputed by both sides. It is not disputed
that the lease is for a period of 9 years. Further, at the time of lease, an
advance of Rs.9 lakhs has been paid by the plaintiff, which is also not
disputed. The fact that the plaintiff had vacated the premises on 31.05.2015 is
also not disputed, after due notice to the defendant. It is also not disputed that
at the time of vacating the premises, only a sum of Rs.2 lakhs has been
returned by the defendant, out of the advance of Rs.9 lakhs.
12. The contention of the defendants is that a sum of Rs.7 lakhs has
been retained towards damages caused to the building. Therefore, it is the
contention of the defendants that severe damage has been caused to the
building and he has spent a sum of Rs.5,25,000/- towards repairing the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 03:58:22 pm )
building. In the written statement filed by the defendants, when carefully seen,
except contending that floors were broken, ceilings were damaged, electrical
connections were tampered beyond repair, damaged the toilets beyond repair,
walls being defaced and that they had spent a sum of Rs.5,25,760/- to set right
the damages, absolutely there is no evidence, whatsoever, placed before this
Court as to the nature of damages found in the building. Further, though it is
stated by the defendants that due to such damages, he could not let out the
premises for more than 22 months, even in this regard, no efforts, whatsoever,
has been taken by the defendants to establish nature of damages found in the
buildings. Not even photographs of the building indicating nature of damages
has been filed. Though it is contended by the defendants that they had spent a
sum of Rs.5,25,000/- and to substantiate the same Ex.B.1 to Ex.B.7 cash
vouchers said to have been issued were marked, it is relevant to note that the
plaintiff had vacated the premises as early as on 31.05.2015. If really there
were damages and having retained Rs.7 lakhs advance amount, immediate
reaction of the owner would be to attend the damages then and there.
Whereas, the vouchers relied upon by the defendants have been paid after
08.07.2017, almost two years after the plaintiff had vacated the premises. This
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 03:58:22 pm )
itself make the documents unreliable. Further to substantiate these
documents, none of the persons who issued such documents have been
examined before this Court to prove the so called vouchers. That apart, no one
has been examined to establish that the so called damages had been attended
and the amount had been spent in this regard.
13. Once a specific stand has been has been taken by the defendants that
the plaintiff has caused damages to the building and the damages has been
assessed to the tune of Rs.5,25,000/-, the burden lies on the defendant to
establish that the said amount has been spent for attending such damages.
Merely on the basis of the vouchers obtained, that too after two years of the
plaintiff vacating the premises, it cannot be said that the advance amount can
be retained by the defendant. Hence, I do not find any merits in this appeal and
the points are answered accordingly.
14. Accordingly, this appeal suit is dismissed. There shall be no Order
as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 03:58:22 pm )
07.02.2025
Index : Yes / No
Internet: Yes
Speaking/non speaking order
vrc
To,
1. The XVI Additional Judge,
City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 03:58:22 pm )
N. SATHISH KUMAR, J.
vrc
07.02.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/03/2025 03:58:22 pm )
