J U D GE M E N T

SANJEEV NARULA, J.

1. 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.1 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.

1 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

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) stated in his affidavit that same was working as Manager (Administration) with defendant company and was well conversant with the facts of the ca