The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the plaintiff for recovery of financial losses and damages due to the defendant's breaches of the franchise agreement, and the court's authority to decree the suit for the claimed amount along with interest and costs.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Mahajan, J. The present appeal has been filed by M/s. IHT Network Limited (appellant-defendant) seeking to set aside the final order dated 09.03.2016. Vide the impugned final order dated 09.03.2016, the Ld. ADJ-04(NW), Rohini District Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. Trial Court) had decreed the suit for recovery filed by the Respondent-Plaintiff to the tune of Rs.19,12,080/- along with interest (simple interest) @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till its realization along with cost of the suit. For the sake of convenience parties are also being referred to by their original names in the suit.

2. The instant suit was filed by the respondent-plaintiff for the recovery of Rs.19,12,080/- alleging as follows:

a. The defendant was engaged in the business of providing Job Guaranteed Courses in the field of Computer Hardware Education and networking along with franchise services for consideration. The Plaintiff after gaining knowledge of the said franchise service being offered and being interested in setting up of such a franchise, contacted the defendant.

b. According to the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff was earlier running an institute for English speaking courses named Achievers Point. Initially, the defendant did not have any objection to the same but later on, the defendant raised an objection to the running of the said institute after collecting the franchise fee/money. It is averred that due to such objections, the plaintiff had to close down the said institute and the sum of Rs.75,000/- which was stated to be given as franchise fee for running the institute Achievers Point, has also been claimed in the suit.

c. The plaintiff in the plaint has further averred that the officials of the defendant after inspecting the premises of the plaintiff had assured him that approximately 70-80 students would be transferred by the defendant from their already running institute and that the plaintiff would earn about Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- as net profit from the fees of the said students. Finding the terms and conditions of the transaction mutually beneficial, a Memorandum of Understanding dated 01.10.2008 (hereinafter referred to the `MoU') was executed between the parties. Incidentally, none of the parties have proved the MoU on record.

d. There is no dispute regarding the payment of two instalments of Rs.1,68,540/- each, by the plaintiff towards franchise fee. The said amounts were paid by the plaintiff on 01.10.2008 and 01.10.2009. Besides the aforesaid amount, as per the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff paid further sum of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees two lakhs and fifty thousand only) to the defendant towards cost of various kinds of hardware, software, equipment/start up kit facility books etc. which were required for running the said centre. However, it has been stated that as against a payment of Rs.2,50,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs and Fifty Thousand only), the defendant supplied goods only worth Rs.1,95,234/- (Rupees One Lakhs and Ninety Five Thousand and Two Hundred and Thirty Four only) and the balance amount of Rs.54,766/- (Rupees Fifty Four Thousand and Seven Hundred and Sixty Six only) was not refunded by the defendant despite reminders.

e. It was further stated that the plaintiff also spent Rs.5,60,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs and Sixty Thousand Only) on the centre towards furniture/fixtures/infrastructure, computers, advertisements and brand publicity. A further sum of Rs.80,000/- per month was spent by the plaintiff for running the said centre, which includes rent, salary of the staff, administration expenses etc.

f. It is stated that despite making all the aforesaid payments, the defendant failed to execute the franchise agreement and also provide the requisite number of students as undertaken by its officials. As per the plaintiff, only 43 students were transferred by the defendant in late November, however, the plaintiff could collect fee only from 16 students as