The absence of a work order does not negate the enforceability of a claim for services rendered, especially when supported by adequate documentation corroborating the transaction.

ORDER :

1. Heard Sri.Gopalakrishnamurthy C., learned counsel for the revision petitioner. None appears for the respondent.

2. Defendant in SC No.564/2017 is the revision petitioner challenging the order dated 26.04.2019 passed by the XXII Additional Small Causes Judge, Bengaluru (SCCH – 24).

3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the revision petition are as under:

3.1. Plaintiff is a firm which is involved in Non-Destructive Testing Services Company (hereinafter ‘NDT’ for short) and providing various NDT services for the price through its employees.

3.2. Defendant is a customer of the plaintiff and availed NDT services from the plaintiff. Defendant has signed the consent form with the plaintiff in token of availing the NDT services from the plaintiff by accepting the terms and conditions and services of the plaintiff.

3.3. Plaintiff provided the service as desired by the defendant and total bill amount for the services rendered by the plaintiff was to the tune of Rs.42,603/-.

3.4. Despite repeated request, defendant failed to make the payment therefore, plaintiff was constrained to issue a legal notice on 06.12.2016. There was no response to the legal notice and therefore, suit came to be filed.

4. Pursuant to the suit summons, defendant entered appearance and filed detailed written statement by contending that the defendant is the manufacturer of Gamma ray and X-ray hubs and blades which is a part used by the Railway Department in the trains and plaintiff is one of the company who tests those parts as they are certified to test the above mentioned parts.

5. Defendant further contended that they had sent the parts to the plaintiff for visual inspection and not for the NDT services. Therefore, in the absence of the work order, the bill raised by the plaintiff need not be paid by the defendant.

6. After completion of the pleadings, plaintiff in order to prove the suit claim, entered witness box and examined himself as P.W.1 and placed on record, 11 documents which were exhibited and marked as Exs.P.1 to 11 comprising of authorization letter, delivery challan, work reports, test reports, invoice, copy of the notice, postal receipt, postal acknowledgement, reply notice and two e-mail conversations.

7. As against the evidence placed by the plaintiff, one of the persons of the defendant got examined as D.W.1 and copy of the quotation was marked as Ex.D.1 authorization letter as marked as Ex.D.2, copy of the Vat certificate is marked as Ex.D.3 and work order as Ex.D.4.

8. After conclusion of recording of the evidence, learned Trial Judge heard the parties in detail and on cumulative consideration of the oral and documentary evidence placed on record, decreed the suit of the plaintiff inter alia holding in paragraph Nos.14 and 15 as under:

“14. On perusal, the pleadings of the parties discloses a clear case of business transaction alleged to be taken place between the Plaintiff and Defendant’s Companies with respect to Non Destructive Testing (NDT) services of the hubs and blades which are used in the trains. It is undisputed that Plaintiff firm is a Company undertaking the services of non destructive service for a price for its customers. It is also not disputed that the Defendant is a manufacturer of Gama Ray and X- Ray of hubs and blades which are used in trains by the Railway Department. Plaintiff claiming that Defendant has sent some products to the Plaintiff for non destructive test and the Plaintiff, after carryover the required test raised a bill in a sum of Rs.42,603/- for its services. The delivery challan produced at Ex.P.2 and Ex.P.3 shows that the Defendant Company had delivered 1