IMPORTANT POINT
The court upheld the concurrent findings of fact regarding the appellant's failure to prove non-delivery, affirming the respondent's entitlement to payment.

JUDGMENT :

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J.

1. The appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 25.03.2023, passed by the learned Additional District Judge-08, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, dismissing the Regular First Appeal, preferred by the appellant-defendant, against the judgment and decree dated 30.03.2017, in Civil Suit No. 597707/2016 by the learned Civil Judge-05, Central District, Tis Hazari Court, whereby, the Civil Suit filed by respondent-plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 1,76,128/- along with interest, was decreed.

2. The facts of the case would indicate that the appellant-defendant is a Bank located in Delhi, while the respondent-plaintiff is a company engaged in courier and delivery services. According to the findings of the Trial Court, the appellant-defendant engaged the services of the respondent-plaintiff for delivering packets and consignments to its clients. The parties had agreed upon specific charges for each delivery, which were consistently reflected in the invoices raised by the respondent-plaintiff. Upon receipt of these invoices, the appellant-defendant would process and release the payment to the respondent-plaintiff.

3. It is the case of the respondent-plaintiff that in September 2013, the appellant-defendant availed its services, and an invoice bearing No. 42977, dated 01.10.2013, was raised for an amount of Rs. 1,76,128/-. However, the payment was not released. Following the issuance of a legal notice and further communication, the respondent-plaintiff proceeded to institute the present Civil Suit.

4. The appellant-defendant contested the Civil Suit mainly on the ground of deficiency of service, contending that the respondent-plaintiff had failed to fulfill its contractual obligations. The appellant-defendant asserted that the letters containing the agenda for its Annual General Meeting had not reached the members of the appellant-defendant Bank, thereby resulting in breach on the part of the respondent-plaintiff.

5. In view thereof, the appellant-defendant argued that no payment could be legitimately claimed by the respondent-plaintiff. It was further submitted that the respondent-plaintiff had failed to produce proof of delivery or any evidence of undelivered agenda books prior to raising invoices for the outstanding balance. The appellant-defendant also contended that it had received numerous complaints from its members regarding non-receipt of the agenda books, which caused considerable embarrassment and reputational damage to the appellant-defendant. Consequently, the appellant-defendant sought damages to the tune of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the alleged loss of reputation.

6. After completion of pleadings, the Trial Court framed following issues:

“(i) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 1,76,128/- from the Defendant, as prayed for? OPP

(ii) Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover the interest from the Defendant as prayed for? OPP

(iii) Relief.”

7. The Trial Court decreed the Civil Suit, directing the appellant-defendant to pay Rs. 1,76,128/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the invoice, i.e. 01.10.2013, until the realization of the amount. The respondent-plaintiff was also awarded the costs of the suit. The judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court were subsequently affirmed by the impugned decision, leading the appellant-defendant to prefer the instant appeal.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-defendant vehemently criticized the findings rendered by the Courts below, submitting that the burden of proving the factum of delivery of agenda books was improperly shifted upon the appellant-defendant, a burden which primarily lay with the respondent-plaintiff. He contended that any deficiencies in the procedural steps of the appellant-defendant cannot be construed in favor of the respondent-plaintiff, who bears the legal responsibility to substantiate its own claim. He pointed out that, as admitted by the responden