The plaintiff must provide sufficient evidence to substantiate claims in civil proceedings, and failure to produce key documents can lead to dismissal of the suit.

JUDGMENT

1. Appellant/plaintiff feeling aggrieved by the judgment of trial Court on the file of XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru in O.S.No.3623/2013 dtd. 25/11/2009, preferred this appeal.

2. Parties to the appeal are referred with their ranks as assigned in the trial Court for the sake of convenience.

3. The factual matrix leading to the case of the plaintiff can be stated in nutshell to the said effect that plaintiff by order of entrustment bearing No.KSTDC/MD/1563/99-2000 dtd. 10/9/1999 permitted the defendant to operate Bengaluru - Hospet, Hospet and Hampi T.B. Dam sight seeing tours with the acceptance of terms and conditions laid down in the Letter of Undertaking dtd. 6/9/1999. The defendant was allotted two coaches bearing No.KA-01-9335 and KA-01- 9271 for this purpose. The defendant had agreed to pay Rs.500.00 per day for operating Hampi - T.B. dam sight seeing tours, irrespective of occupancy and operation of coaches. As per the statement furnished by the incharge CAAO of the Corporation, the total collection due to the Corporation from defendant for the period from 13/9/1999 to 13/9/2000 is Rs.25, 84, 223.00. The defendant has paid only Rs.10, 01, 117.00. The defendant is due for remaining amount and inspite of letter/correspondence of plaintiff dtd. 5/7/2000 and 21/8/2000, the defendant has not paid the amount. The defendant has misappropriated the funds of plaintiff- Corporation. The incharge Special Officer (workshop) has reported that the conditions of the vehicles which were returned by the defendant was very bad with damages and dents all over the vehicles. The total bills is worth Rs.34, 800.00. The defendant is in due of Rs.9, 67, 689.00 towards revenue collection. The allegation of misappropriation against the defendant has been proved in the disciplinary proceedings. Therefore, on these grounds, plaintiff-Corporation filed the suit for recovery of money due to it as claimed in the suit.

4. In response to the suit summons, the defendant has appeared through counsel and filed written statement admitting the orders of plaintiff-Corporation dtd. 10/9/1999 and defendant was entrusted with two coaches for the purpose of operating the same from Bengaluru - Hospet sight seeing tours. However, defendant has denied that he is due of suit claim. It is the case of the defendant that he has paid the entire amount due to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has made false allegations against defendant for having caused damages to the vehicle and incurred expenses for repairs of both the coaches. The decision of disciplinary authority in holding the defendant guilty of the charges leveled against him has been challenged before this Court in W.P.No.47099/2004, which is still pending. Therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. The trial Court on the basis of the pleadings of both the parties has framed necessary issues. Plaintiff to prove its case relied on the evidence of P.W.1 and the documents at Exs.P1 to P5. The defendant has relied on his own evidence D.W.1 and no documents were marked on behalf of defendant. The trial Court after hearing the arguments of both sides and on appreciation of evidence has dismissed the suit of plaintiff.

6. Heard the arguments of both sides.

7. After hearing the arguments of both sides and on perusal of trial Court records and judgment, following points arise for consideration:-

i) Whether the finding recorded by the trial Court on Issue Nos.1 and 2 is perverse, capricious and legally not sustainable ?

ii) Whether any interference of this Court is required ?

8. On careful perusal of oral and documentary evidence placed on record by both the parties to the suit, it would go to show that the plaintiff by order dtd. 10/9/1999 has permitted the defendant to operate Bengaluru - Hospet, Hospet and Hampi T.B. dam sight seeing tours with the acceptance of terms and conditions laid down in the Letter of Undertaking dtd. 6/9/1999 and defendant was allotted two coaches bearing No.KA- 01-9335