The burden of proof for the claimed rate lies with the party making the claim, and failure to provide evidence may result in the claim not being upheld.

JUDGMENT

Rajbir Sehrawat, J. - This is appeal filed by the defendant in a suit for recovery, challenging the concurrent findings recorded by both the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed against the appellants.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff/respondent filed the instant suit with the averment that he was doing the business of selling bath towels under the name and style of M/s. Monika Enterprises at Panipat. The appellant was doing his business at Delhi under the name and style of M/s. Blessings Advertisement Pvt. Limited. The defendant - appellant approached the plaintiff - respondent for supply of 35,000 bath towels of 550 grams per piece and demanded quotations from the plaintiff. The plaintiff supplied the quotation dated 01.05.2011. Being satisfied with the said quotation, the appellant - defendant ordered the supply of 20,000 pieces of towels on 04.05.2011 by coming at Panipat. The delivery of the material was to be made at Meerut with the specified terms of purchase and payment, as mentioned in the plaint. Accordingly, the plaintiff had supplied 20,000 towels in three lots. Accordingly, the part payments were also made on three different occasions, except for the 2040 towels. The appellant/defendant raised a dispute with the plaintiff that 2040 pieces of towels were defective. Hence, a debit note was raised by defendant for adjustment of the amount of the bills. Accordingly, the said amount was adjusted as per the debit note raised by the appellant - defendant. However, despite the above-said part payment having been made, the amount of Rs. 14.5 lakhs was still outstanding against the defendant/appellant. The plaintiff served a legal notice dated 03.10.2011 upon the defendant to make the payment. Thereafter, another legal notice dated 13.06.2013 was also served upon the defendant. Despite that, on not getting the payments, the plaintiff had preferred the suit.

3. In the written statement, the appellant - defendant raised various objections regarding maintainability. However, on merit, it was specifically pleaded by the defendant that the agreement was for supply of 35,000 towels and the agreed rate was Rs. 75/- per towel. It was to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the towels were to be supplied to the client namely 'Mankind Pharma Limited'. However, the towels supplied by the plaintiff were of defective quality. Therefore, on account of defective towels, the defendant had to suffer loss of reputation, income and other losses; including the money spent on transport and arranging the another product for that client. So, a counter-claim of Rs. 2 lakhs was also filed. Additionally, the defendant had specifically pleaded in his written statement that out of the total supply of 20,000 towels, 2040 towels were found to be totally defective.

4. The respective parties led their evidence. After appreciating the respective evidence of the parties, the trial Court decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff and dismissed the counter claim filed by the appellant-defendant. The appellant - defendant preferred an appeal against the judgment passed by the trial Court. However, the Lower Appellate Court also dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant. That is how the present appeal has been filed.

5. While arguing the case, learned counsel for the appellant-defendant has submitted that the documents being relied in the suit are not the original copies of the documents. Only photostat copies have been placed on record. Although the same have been shown as exhibited, however, mere exhibition of the documents does not dispense with the requirement of the proof of the same, in accordance with law. Counsel has relied upon judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in 2015(4) RCR (Civil) 1023 - Rakesh Mohindra v. Anita Beri and others , and accordingly, it is submitted by the counsel that since the documents in evidence have not been proved in accordance with law, therefore, the same could not be