In a breach of contract, the party who suffers the breach is entitled to damages from the party who committed breach. However, the plaintiff must prove the actual damages and loss suffered by him.

JUDGEMENT - T.K. CHANDRASHEKHARA DAS, J. :---Admit. To be heard forthwith by consent.

2. The defendant files this appeal. The suit is for recovery of money from the appellant.

3. The plaintiff's case is that he was employed as a Manager of Cine Metropole at Margao under the Management of M/s. Hira Film Exhibitors. The defendant/appellant was working as a booking-clerk in the said theatre. The plaintiff/respondent was in overall charge of the staff and the day to day collection made out of the sale of tickets, which was deposited in the company bank, namely, United Commercial Bank at Margao. The appellant was entrusted with the duty of taking the cash to the bank for the purpose of depositing and, thereafter, return the pass-book to the respondent showing the deposit. On 19-10-1993 the respondent was entrusted a sum of Rs. 9,067.35 with the bank pass-book for the purpose of depositing in the bank. When the appellant went to remit the money into the bank, two door-keepers also accompanied him as security. The appellant failed to return the pass-book till about 2.00 p.m. When the respondent inquired from him the appellant started to give evasive answers. The respondent then went to the bank and inquired but came to know that it was not deposited. On returning to the office the respondent found that the appellant had disappeared from the office. It was further revealed that the door-keeper was absconding with the money and a criminal case was charged against him. He pleaded guilty and was convicted.

4. Subsequently, the respondent filed the present suit against the appellant on the allegation that the company has lost an amount of Rs. 5,767.35 due to the negligent act of the appellant and the company had decided to recover the said amount from the salary of the respondent and to recover that amount the respondent filed the suit against the appellant.

5. The suit was resisted by the appellant saying that the respondent has no locus standi to file the suit as the money was lost to M/s. Hira Film Exhibitors as the money belonged to them. He further contended that there was no entrustment of money by the respondent to him. With these rival contentions the parties went for trial. The trial Court dismissed the suit mainly on the ground that the respondent had no locus standi to file the suit as the money does not belong to him. Against the Judgment of the trial Court the respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Court. The decree of the trial Court was reversed by the Lower Appellate Court and the suit was decreed for an amount of Rs. 5,767.35 with interest at 12% p.a. that is how this appeal arises.

6. The counsel for the appellant mainly contended that the plaintiff has not proved in this case his locus standi to file the suit. Apart from the oral evidence, he relied on a document which was marked as Exhibit P.W. 18 dated 26th December, 1983 whereby legal notice was sent on behalf of M/s. Hira Film Exhibitors demanding the amount of Rs. 9,067.35 from the appellant. It further says that if the appellant fails to pay the amount a suit would be filed within 7 days from the date of receipt of the notice. Mainly relying on this document, the trial Court found that the money does not belong to the respondent and that on the other hand it belongs to the company of which the plaintiff is only an employee and therefore the suit is not maintainable.

7. The main contentions of the plaintiff, namely, the respondent herein is that he was the Manager of M/s. Hira Film Exhibitors and he was to discharge all the responsibilities of collecting and depositing the money in the bank and supervising his subordinate employees including the appellant. He further contended and tried to prove that he on his own volition, not as part of the duties of post, he used to entrust the money to the appellant to remit it to the bank. In other words the plaintiff's case is that the entrustment of money to the appellant is at his risk and responsibility and not as a par

Click Here to Read the rest of this document