The court affirmed that the suit was within limitation and established the nature of the account as a running account, rejecting the defendant's claims of discharge and jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.KUMARAPPAN, J.)

1. The instant OSA is arising against the judgment and decree passed in C.S.No.443 of 2011 dated 26.07.2017. The defendant and the plaintiff are the appellant and respondent respectively herein.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to according to their litigative status arrayed in C.S.No.443 of 2011.

3. Shorne of unnecessary details, the relevant pleadings, which are germane for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:-

(a). The plaintiff is an institute approved and affiliated by the “Insurance Regulatory Development Authority” [“IRDA”]. The defendant is the Insurance Company. It is the submission of the plaintiff that according to IRDA guideline, the Insurance Company needs to recruit only agents who underwent training imparted by the Institute approved by IRDA. Since the plaintiff is an approved Institute, the defendant used to send their candidates to the plaintiff institute for practical training in Life and General Insurance business. It is the further submission of the plaintiff that after imparting such training, a certificate will be issued to the sponsored candidates. The plaintiff further submits that, unless such candidates pass in the examination, they will not be qualified to act as an agent.

(b). It is the further submission of the plaintiff that as per the agreement, the plaintiff used to send the course completion certificates of the sponsored candidates and raise bills for their professional charges. The plaintiff further submits that they had given trainings to the defendant's candidates under various batches from the period 2005-2006 to 2007-2008. It is their further submission that the defendant used to make part payment at times, and that the entire transactions were treated by both parties as a running account. According to the plaintiff, as per the running account, a sum of Rs.61,50,795/- became due from the defendant. It is the specific submission of the plaintiff that they have given credit to various payments made by the defendant, and the last transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant is dated 21.05.2008. Since the defendant did not come forward to settle the claim, the plaintiff issued a legal notice to them on 04.08.2010.

(c). However, the defendant, without disputing the claim, had only stated that they are in the process of verifying the account and also requested the plaintiff to provide the agreement copy. The plaintiff further submits that, the defendant having sponsored candidates, and obtained the service of the plaintiff, cannot postpone the payment for their professional charges. Therefore, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.94,72,225/- together with future interest of Rs.33,21,429/- on the principle sum of Rs.61,50,796/-.

4. The said suit was resisted by the defendant by totally denying the plaintiff's claim. According to the defendant, the suit is barred by limitation. It is their further submission that under the letter of intent dated 01.01.2007, the alleged amount claimed in the suit became due between April 2008 and March 2010. This defendant submits that the plaintiff imparted training to the candidates in accordance to the terms of the letter of intent and that the professional fee agreed is Rs.2,000/- per candidate. This defendant further submits that the present suit is a counter blast to their letter dated 14.03.2009, where they sought for the confirmation of “Nil” balance from the plaintiff. According to them, there are no fees due for the period prior to 01.01.2007, and that with effect from 01.01.2007, the letter of intent will take care of the terms of payment. They further submit that the payment will be made only to the candidates, who passed in the exam conducted by IRDA. This defendant also disputes the nature of account and according to the defendant, the account between the plaintiff and the defendant is not a running account. It is the fu