-1- Rs.No.2497 of 2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Rs.No.2497 of 2014 (O&M) Date of decision: 08.05.2014 Life Insurance Corporation of India ....Appellant Versus Sudesh Chaudhary ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH1 Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?.
2) To be referred to the Reporters or not ?.
3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?.
Present: - Mr.B.R.Mahajan, Advocate, for the appellant.
***** PARAMJEET SINGH, J.
This regular second appeal by defendant is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2012 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division).Jalandhar, whereby the suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff was decreed as well as against the judgment and decree dated 20.12.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Jalandhar, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant has been allowed partly.
For convenience sake, reference to parties is being made as per their status in the civil suit.
The detailed facts of the case are already recapitulated in the judgments of the Courts below and are not required to be reproduced.
However, the facts relevant for disposal of this second appeal are to the Singh Ravinder 2014.05.09 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -2- Rs.No.2497 of 2014 effect that plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,05,800/- (principal amount of Rs.72,967/- and interest @ 18% per annum till filing of suit i.e.Rs.32,835/-) on the ground that defendants called tenders for raising of compound wall and other miscellaneous works at Branch Office, Garhshankar.
Plaintiff's tender was accepted by the tender committee.
Thereafter vide letter dated 28.07.2006, work order of Rs.77430/- was allotted to him.
It was stipulated in the said letter that work was to be completed within 30 days from the date of said letter.
Plaintiff firm started the work in terms of the said letter.
The defendants time to time extended the work order on inspection of work at site.
Plaintiff completed the work within stipulated period.
Defendants issued letters regarding short-comings observed at the site, which were met with by the plaintiff.
Thereafter plaintiff submitted bill dated 08.12.2006 of Rs.1,02,038.40 which was duly received by the defendants on 11.12.2006.
Thereafter the plaintiff firm was allotted additional work for Rs.12,087/- which was also completed and bill for the said amount was submitted to the defendants for payment.
It was alleged that despite demand of payments of two bills, the defendants kept on delaying the payments on one pretext or the other and ultimately issued part payment of Rs.44,859/- vide cheque dated 31.01.2007.
The amount of Rs.72,967/- was still found due towards the defendants, which they failed to pay despite service of legal notice.
Hence, the suit was filed.
Upon notice, defendants appeared and filed joint written statement raising certain preliminary objections.
On merits, it was Singh Ravinder 2014.05.09 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -3- Rs.No.2497 of 2014 submitted that plaintiff had failed to complete the work within the stipulated period and short-comings were found in the work after inspection on the site on 26.08.2006.
Plaintiff had submitted a wrong bill on 08.12.2006 for an amount of Rs.1,02,038.40 as the defendants had never awarded the work for this amount.
Defendants informed the plaintiff vide letter dated 13.12.2006 and thereafter joint inspection was carried out.
Subsequently, after joint inspection, plaintiff submitted fiRs.RA bill amounting to Rs.50,292.18 on 31.01.2007 which was duly settled on 06.02.2007 vide which plaintiff received full and final payment through cheque dated 31.01.2007 and consequently nothing remained due towards the defendants.
All other averments were denied and prayer for dismissal of suit was made.
Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement denying the averments in the written statement and reiterating the averments in the plaint.
Court of fiRs.instance, on the basis of pleadings of the parties, framed following issues: - “1.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of amount as prayed for?.
OPP2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so, at what rate?.
OPP3 Whether the suit of the plaintiff is maintainable?.
OPP4 Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit by his act, conduct and acquiescence?.
OPD5 Relief.”
.
The Court of fiRs.instance, after appreciating evidence on Singh Ravinder 2014.05.09 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -4- Rs.No.2497 of 2014 record decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.1,05,802/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of decree and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of decree till realization.
Against the judgment and decree of the Court of fiRs.instance, appeal preferred by the appellant has been partly accepted by lower appellate Court and judgment and decree of the Court of fiRs.instance has been modified and plaintiff has been held entitled to interest @ 9% per annum from the date of issuance of bills till decision of the case and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum on principal amount of Rs.72,967/-.
Counsel fee has been assessed at Rs.2000/-.
Hence, this second appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the appellant referred to substantial question of law formulated in the grounds of appeal, which reads as under: - “Whether findings of the courts below that the plaintiff is entitled to amount claimed in the suit are based on misreading and ignoring material evidence on record and suffer from perversity and unsustainable?.”.
Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below are based on misreading of oral and documentary evidence and as such the impugned judgments and decrees cannot be sustained.
I have considered the contentions raised by learned counsel Singh Ravinder 2014.05.09 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh -5- Rs.No.2497 of 2014 for the appellant.
Both the Courts below have recorded a concurrent finding of fact that plaintiff firm completed the allotted work within 30 days and also removed the short-comings that were pointed out in the work executed and the defendants had knowledge of the work done and completed at the site.
The plaintiff firm was held entitled to recovery of principal amount of Rs.72967/-.
So far as the interest part is concerned, lower appellate Court has modified the judgment and decree of the Court of fiRs.instance and decreased the rate of interest from 18% per annum to 9% per annum on the principal amount on the ground that there was no agreement between the parties for payment of interest @ 18% per annum.
Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show that the findings recorded by Courts below are perveRs.or illegal or based on misreading, non-reading or mis-appreciation of the material evidence on record.
In view of concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, no question of law, muchless substantial question of law, as alleged, arises in the present appeal.
No other point was raised.
Dismissed in limine.
(Paramjeet Singh) Judge May 08, 2014 R.S.Singh Ravinder 2014.05.09 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh