Proof of negligence is a factual matter requiring detailed evidence, and mere allegations are insufficient to establish liability.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit against the impugned judgment dated 28.3.2017 dismissing the suit for recovery of Rs.45,01,609/-. The suit for recovery was filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the respondent/defendant which had provided security guards to the appellant/plaintiff. The case of the appellant/plaintiff as per the plaint is that there was a theft in the premises of the appellant/plaintiff in the years 2001 to 2003 as also a major theft in 2004-2005 of articles worth Rs.45 lacs, and therefore, respondent/defendant should be held liable for the value of the goods stolen on account of the negligence of the respondent/defendant.

2. The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff filed the subject suit for recovery of Rs.45,01,609/- pleading that the respondent/defendant was engaged to provide security guards, but inspite of security guards being provided yet thefts took place, and consequently, the respondent/defendant is liable on account of negligence to pay for the value of the goods which have been stolen. The relevant paras pleading cause of action in the plaint are paras 13 to 19 and these paras read as under:-

“13. That after the agreement, the Defendant started providing security cover and initially everything went on smooth. However, in the year 2001-2003, there were thefts of various items, as detailed below:-

SL.NO	REFERENCE NO. AND DATE	BEIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE ITEMS STOLEN
1.	16(42)/2001-2002/HTVTC/2927 dated 01.02.2001	Theft of items stored at the basement of the centre.
2.	16(42)/2001-2002/HTVTC/4587 dated 11.10.2002	Theft of three CPUs of the computer of electrical installation lab.
3.	16(42)/2001-2002/HTVTC/5451 dated 31.05.2003	Theft of 19 nos. of aluminum windows frames, along with fitted handle and glass panel.
4.	16(42)/2001-2002/HTVTS/372-375,dated 30.10.2004	The in the premises of HTVDC Okhla Indl. Area Phase II New Delhi. Goods valuing Rs.44,93,600/- are stolen.
5.	16(42)/2001-2002/HTVTC/608, dated 16.02.2005	Theft in the premises of HTVDC Okhla Indl. Area Phase II New Delhi.

14. That the present suit is only qua the thefts which took place in the year 2004-2005.

15. That in the 2004, a major theft took place on 29.10.2004 and goods and articles worth more than Rs.45.00 Lacs approximately were stolen while under the charge of the Defendants. The Plaintiffs though lodged a complaint to the effect, but due to absence of any clue, the Police filed its Un-Trace Report on 27.12.2005.

16. That surprisingly with in a time frame of 20 days, another theft took place, which was discovered on 17/18.01.2006 and a report was lodged with the Police. The Defendants were called upon to give heir explanation. However much to the surprise they denied their responsibility.

17. That thereafter, this loss of Rs.1.40 Lacs from the theft in the year 2005 was adjusted from the security charges amounting to Rs.1,33,991/- and still there is a balance of Rs.8,009/- to be payable to the Plaintiffs.

18. That the Defendant in order to overcome his deficiency of service and negligence, got a false notice sent by his Advocate, claiming enhanced wages which was never agreed to by the Plaintiff at any stage. Hence, a reply was sent to this notice pointing out the deficiency of services.

19. That the Plaintiff as per the terms of the agreement, subsisting between the parties is entitled to the loss of goods worth Rs.44,93,600/- together with a balance of Rs.8,009/- from the Defendant and hence, prefers this Plaint before this Hon’ble Court. The Plaintiff is also entitled to an interest @ 18% p.a.”

(underlining added)

3. In the security agency agreement dated 1.7.2000 Ex