IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J.
Afcons Infrastructure Ltd & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Major Balwan Singh - Respondent
RFA 263 of 2011 & CM APPL. 3002 of 2013, CM APPL. 3003 of 2013
Decided On : 01-12-2023
Evidence - Sale of Diesel - CPC - [Order 7 Rule 17 CPC, 1908] - [Section 17 of the Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891] - [Section 13 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872] - [Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872] - [Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872] - [Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963] - The court discussed the failure of the plaintiff to produce the original account book as required under Order 7 Rule 17 CPC, and the significance of ledger accounts in financial disputes. It emphasized the burden of proof on the party asserting a claim and the need for credible evidence to support it. The court also highlighted the principle of preponderance of probabilities and the rule of best evidence in evaluating financial claims.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over outstanding dues for the supply of diesel. The plaintiff claimed unpaid invoices, while the defendants asserted that all payments had been made. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, but the defendants appealed, challenging the findings and conclusions of the lower court.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the plaintiff failed to produce the original account book as required under Order 7 Rule 17 CPC, and the absence of ledger accounts significantly weakened the plaintiff's position. The Court emphasized the burden of proof on the party asserting a claim and the need for credible evidence to support it. It concluded that the plaintiff's failure to discharge the burden of proof necessitated setting aside the impugned judgment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the outstanding dues for the supply of diesel, the validity of the plaintiff's claim, and the sufficiency of evidence presented by both parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The burden of proof lies with the party asserting a claim, and in financial disputes, the production of books of accounts is indispensable. The failure to produce necessary accounting records or other corroborative evidence significantly weakens the legitimacy of the claim for outstanding payments. The court emphasized the principle of preponderance of probabilities and the rule of best evidence in evaluating financial claims.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned judgment and decree were set aside. The decretal amount deposited by the appellants was directed to be released back to them with applicable interest.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Narula, J. - This judgement shall decide the present appeal, which arises from the judgement and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Delhi on 27th January, 2011, and amended on 18th July, 2011 [hereinafter, "impugned judgement"]. The decree mandates the Appellants to pay to the Respondent an amount of Rs. 4,08,715/-, along with an interest rate of 12% per annum, covering both the pendente lite period and future accruals. The Appellants contest the findings and conclusions of the lower court, asserting that they are based on erroneous facts, and disregard the apparent lack of evidence in support of the Respondent's claims.
THE FACTS AND THE IMPUGNED JUDGEMENT
2. Major Balwan Singh, Respondent (Plaintiff in the original suit), was the sole proprietor of M/s Balwan Service Station, an entity conducting business in PSP Institutional Area, Sector- 16, Rohini.[During the pendency of the present appeal, Major Balwan Singh deceased and his proprietary concern [M/s Balwan Service Station] was inherited by his son, Mr. Anil Kumar. Document evidencing the change in ownership has been produced on record.] Appellant No. 1, Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. (originally, Defendant No. 1), a construction company, entered into an arrangement with the Respondent in 2002, for supply of diesel as fuel for machineries which were being used in building of a flyover at Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. Under the agreed terms, the Respondent would issue invoices periodically for the goods supplied, and these invoices were to be settled by the Appellants in due course.
3. On 01st September, 2004, alleging that Appellants were evading payments of accumulated dues, Respondent issued a legal notice to the Appellants, which went unanswered. The Respondent then filed a lawsuit for recovery of Rs. 6,62,118/-, the outstanding dues allegedly reflected in Respondent's running account for the transactions between Appellants and Respondent. Additionally, interest at the rate of 24% per annum and costs were also claimed. The suit was accompanied with twelve allegedly unpaid invoices, which formed the basis for the suit claim.
4. The Appellants contested the suit, refuting the allegations of Respondent. They asserted that their own records, which were maintained in the regular course of business, and were duly audited, contradicted the claims made in the plaint. Appellants argued that Respondent's allegations were both vexatious and frivolous, and called for an outright dismissal of the suit.
5. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed by the Trial Court:
"i). What amount the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant?
ii) . What rate of interest and for what period the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant?
iii) . Relief."
6. To substantiate his case, the Respondent led oral evidence and examined one witness. The Appellants also examined one witness in their defence. The Trial Court, after considering the documents and oral and documentary evidence, arrived at the following findings:
"8. ISSUE NO. I : As discussed above, it is not disputed by the defendants that they were purchasing diesel from the plaintiff to complete their project i.e. Flyover at Punjabi Bagh. As per defendants, all payments have already been made by them and there was no amount due. On the other hand, it is sworn on oath by the plaintiff in his affidavit i.e. Ex. PW1/A that he was Sole Proprietor of M/s. Balwan Service Station. There was an outstanding balance of Rs.4,08,715/- against the defendants in year 2005, the copy of statement of account is Ex. PW1/1. The plaintiff put on file 12 (twelve) invoices Ex.PW1./2 (collectively). Copy of legal notice is Ex.PW1/3. Same is stated to have been sent through post, AD Card in this regard is ExDW1/D3. Postal receipts are Ex.PW.1 /5. Similarly, copy of UPC receipt is Ex.PW1/6.
9. Sh. P. K. Unnie (DW1) sta
AI
The burden of proof lies with the party asserting a claim, and in financial disputes, the production of books of accounts is indispensable. The failure to produce necessary accounting records or othe....
The burden of proof rests on the complainant to establish the existence of a legally enforceable liability in cheque dishonor cases under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Failure to prove such liabili....
Failure to provide sufficient evidence of delivery and substantiate claims leads to dismissal of recovery suit.
The absence of certification under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, does not render computer-generated ledger accounts inadmissible, and the non-examination of the person who made entrie....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.