Final Order 33

Order Details: COPY OF JUDGMENT
Pdf Text: IN THE COURT OF MS. ANJU BAJAJ CHANDNA
PRINCIPAL DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE
NEW DELHI DISTRICT : PATIALA HOUSE COURTS :
NEW DELHI
CNR No. DLND01-009699-2021
Civil Suit No. CS-01/2022
Saroj Kumari
W/o Late Sh. Praveen Chand,
R/o Village Rajputa Barota
Post Office Gagruhi Tehsil Jawalamukhi
Drihn, Gagruhi, Kangra
Himachal Pradesh-176039
...Plaintiff
Versus
Sunil Kumar
S/o Sh.Atma Ram
R/o D-1/172, South Moti Bagh,
Near Basurkar Market
New Delhi-110021
Also at:-
Pkt-G2/8, House no.8
Sector-15, New Delhi-110085
...Defendant
Date of filing : 03.01.2022
Date of argument : 16.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 16.09.2025
Appearance:
Sh.Pradeep Kumar, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff.
(through VC)
Sh. Varun Kashyap, Ld. Counsel for
defendant (through VC)
CS No. 01/2022
page no. 1
of 11
-- 1 of 11 --
JUDGMENT:-
1. Plaintiff Saroj Kumari w/o Late Sh.Praveen Chand
preferred the present civil suit seeking recovery of Rs.5,77,782/-
from the defendant Sunil Kumar s/o Atma Ram on the ground
that defendant had approached plaintiff’s husband for financial
help and requested for transferring an amount of Rs.16,040/-
(rupees sixteen thousand and forty only) on monthly basis and
assured and promised to pay the same with interest. The husband
of plaintiff started transferring payment of Rs.16,040/- into the
account of defendant on monthly basis from 20.06.2016 till
18.04.2019 which includes an amount of Rs.15,540/- on
20.06.2016, Rs.20,000/- on 19.08.2016, Rs.20,500/- on
17.09.2016, Rs.4,500/- on 27.10.2016, Rs.20,000/- on 18.11.2016
and rest are same monthly amount of Rs.16,040/-. It is further
contended by the plaintiff that her husband paid a total sum of
Rs.5,77,782/-. The husband of the plaintiff expired on
04.07.2020 about which information was duly sent to the
defendant. The defendant was requested to refund the amount
along with interest but defendant neglected to pay the same to the
defendant despite personal visits of the plaintiff to Delhi and
despite several calls. The plaintiff issued legal notice to the
defendant through her counsel calling upon the defendant to
refund the amount of Rs.5,77,782/- and the notice was sent
through courier and speed post on 23.10.2021. In view of the
above facts and circumstances, a decree of Rs.5,77,782/- along
with pendente-lite and future interest @ 24 per cent in favour of
plaintiff, is prayed for.
CS No. 01/2022
page no. 2
of 11
-- 2 of 11 --
2. The summons of the suit were served upon the
defendant and on appearance defendant was directed to file
written statement. However, written statement was filed belatedly
and vide order dated 01.08.2023, the court ordered that written
statement cannot be taken on record. Thereafter plaintiff Saroj
Kumari was examined as PW-1. The defendant later filed written
statement along with an application under Section 5 Limitation
Act. The said application was allowed vide order dated
05.12.2023 subject to the cost of Rs.10,000/- and written
statement was taken on record.
3. By way of written statement, defendant has taken
preliminary objections about no cause of action and suppression
of material facts. It is stated that plaintiff’s husband approached
the defendant for financial help and defendant purchased Toyota
Etios for plaintiff’s husband so that he could live his life
smoothly. The down payment of Rs.2,49,576/- on 08.06.2015
was given by the defendant and remaining cost of the car was
financed by United Auto Finance to the defendant. The EMI of
said loan was Rs.16,040/- to be paid for 48 months. It is further
contended by the defendant that plaintiff’s husband engaged the
above mentioned car with UBER and later on with KTC and
started working as driver on monthly salary of Rs.25,000/-. It is
admitted that husband of the plaintiff transferred amount of
Rs.16,040/- into the account of defendant on monthly basis.
Defendant has denied receiving legal notice and further asserted
CS No. 01/2022
page no. 3
of 11
-- 3 of 11 --
that suit of the plaintiff is misuse of the process of law and it is
prayed that suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.
4. Admission / denial of the documents was carried out
and the case was fixed for defendant’s evidence. The defendant
filed his affidavit in evidence and examined himself as DW-1.
The defendant also filed an application under Section 151 CPC
for calling the remaining witnesses and summons were
accordingly issued to the witnesses. Thereafter DW-2 Sh.Adil
Khan, the authorised representative of K.T.C. (India) Limited
was examined. The defendant again filed his affidavit in
evidence on 08.07.2025 and matter was fixed for arguments.
5. Plaintiff Saroj Kumari examined herself as PW-1 by
way of affidavit Ex.PW1/1 wherein she reiterated the averments
of the plaint, detailing the transfer of amounts on monthly basis
to the defendant. Plaintiff has proved bank statement Ex.PW1/C
(colly), death certificate of her husband Ex.PW1/B, legal notice
dated 22.10.2021 Ex.PW1/C, tracking report dated 26.10.2021
Ex.PW1/D.
6. During cross-examination, PW-1/plaintiff admitted
that her husband was working as driver with KTC Tour and
Travel Company and her husband used to drive luxury car like
Audi. Plaintiff was not sure that car bearing no.DL1Z-2895
model Etios was driven by her husband or that said car was given
by Sunil Kumar (defendant) to her husband. The suggestion has
CS No. 01/2022
page no. 4
of 11
-- 4 of 11 --
been denied by the plaintiff that her husband was driving Etios
car on contract / lease basis given by Sunil Kumar or that false
and frivolous case has been filed to grab the money. Plaintiff
also denied the suggestion that her husband gave installments to
Sunil Kumar as he had taken the car on lease / contract basis
from Sunil Kumar.
7. The defendant filed his affidavit Ex.PW1/1 in
evidence alleging therein that he made the down payment of
Rs.2,49,576/- on 08.06.2015 and rest amount was financed by
United Auto Finance towards the purchase of Etios car. The EMI
of the said loan was Rs. 16,040/- to be paid for 48 months and
the defendant paid installments for first 12 months as per the
request of plaintiff’s husband. It is further stated by the
defendant that plaintiff’s husband engaged above mentioned car
with UBER and thereafter with KTC Tour and Travel and started
working on basis of Rs.25,000/- per month. The amounts have
been transferred by the plaintiff’s husband into the account of
defendant as his liability to pay the installments of the car on
monthly basis.
8. During cross-examination, defendant (DW-1)
admitted that he has not annexed any document regarding vehicle
bearing no. DL1Z-2895 and further admitted having sold the
aforesaid vehicle to some other person but till date, registration
certificate (RC) is in his name. The suggestion has been denied
by the defendant that he never purchased Toyota Car for
CS No. 01/2022
page no. 5
of 11
-- 5 of 11 --
plaintiff’s husband or that financial help was provided by
plaintiff’s husband to him. Defendant has denied that he made
false story to avoid his legal liability to pay Rs.5,77,782/-. It is
also denied that amount of Rs.5,77,782/- was deposited by
plaintiff’s husband but at the same time the defendant could not
state as to how much amount was deposited by plaintiff’s
husband into his account. The suggestion is denied that defendant
was liable to pay Rs.5,77,782/- to the husband of the plaintiff as
he deposited the said amount to his bank account for the purpose
of EMI of the aforesaid vehicle. Defendant has denied to be
deposing falsely.
9. In his affidavit dated 07.07.2025 (second affidavit),
defendant submitted that plaintiff’s husband approached him for
financial help and defendant purchased a Toyota Etios car for the
plaintiff’s husband. Defendant paid the down payment of
Rs.2,49,576/- on 08.06.2015 and rest amount was financed by
United Auto Finance to the defendant. The EMI of the said loan
was Rs. 16,040/- to be paid for 48 months and the defendant paid
installment for first 12 months as per the request of plaintiff’s
husband. It is further stated by the defendant that plaintiff’s
husband engaged above mentioned car with UBER and thereafter
with KTC Tour and Travel and started working on basis of
Rs.25,000/- per month. The amount have been transferred by the
plaintiff’s husband into the account of defendant as his liability to
pay the installment of the car on monthly basis. The husband of
the plaintiff working on Uber in the year 2015 to 2016 and after
CS No. 01/2022
page no. 6
of 11
-- 6 of 11 --
that he was working in KTC till his death. In this way, defendant
has repeated the averments of his earlier affidavit.
10. DW-2 Adil Khan is a summoned witness on behalf
of KTC and he brought the following documents:-
1. Certified true copy of Board Resolution dated
12.12.2024 Ex.DW2/A.
2. Affidavit dated 29.06.2015 of defendant Sunil
Kumar Ex.DW2/B.
3. Signed copy of registration certificate (RC) of
vehicle no.DL1Z-2895 Ex.DW2/C (OSR).
4. Service agreement dated 05.02.2016 Ex.DW2/D
(OSR)
5. Print of electronic copy of ledger account of
Sh.Parveen Chand maintained by KTC (India) Pvt.
Ltd for the following period:-
i) w.e.f. 01.04.2015 to 31.03.2017 (Ex.DW2/E)
ii) w.e.f. 01.04.2017 to 31.03.2018 (Ex.DW2/F)
iii) w.e.f. 01.04.2018 to 31.03.2024 (Ex.DW2/G)
6. Original Certificate dated 14.01.2025 under Section
63 of Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) 2023
Ex.DW2/H.
The said witness was not cross examined on behalf of
plaintiff.
CS No. 01/2022
page no. 7
of 11
-- 7 of 11 --
11. I have heard Sh.Pradeep Kumar, Ld. Counsel for
plaintiff and Sh.Varun Kashyap, Ld. Counsel for defendant and
given due consideration to the facts and circumstances of the
case and to the material available on record.
12. The issue which falls for determination in the
present case is whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of
Rs.5,77,782/- from the defendant.
13. There are two versions on record, as according to
the plaintiff, financial help was extended to the defendant by her
husband (since deceased) by transferring an amount of
Rs.16,040/- on monthly basis w.e.f 20.06.2016 till 18.04.2019
and the defendant is liable to repay the said amount. On the
other hand, the version of the defendant is that he purchased the
car for the husband of the plaintiff so that he could run his life
smoothly and also the husband of the plaintiff entered into
service agreement with KTC India Limited Ex. DW2/D.
According to the defendant, plaintiff’s husband was transferring
the amount of EMI as the car was purchased by the defendant.
14. According to the registration certificate Ex.DW2/C,
car bearing no. DL1Z-2895 Toyota Etios is registered in the
name of defendant Sunil Kumar. The defendant has also stated
in his testimony that he has sold the aforesaid car to some other
person (although no document in this regard has been placed on
record). So far as purchase of the vehicle bearing no. DL1Z-
CS No. 01/2022
page no. 8
of 11
-- 8 of 11 --
2895 Toyota Etios is concerned, the defendant has not brought
any document to show that he made the down payment of
Rs.2,49,576/- or that rest amount was financed by United Auto
Finance. Be that as it may, even if, this is assumed as true, the
car stands registered in the name of defendant and hence
defendant only was to pay the price of the car. Therefore even if
defendant purchased the car, the plaintiff’s husband was not
bound to make the payment of installments as the car was
purchased by the defendant not by the plaintiff’s husband. The
contention of the defendant that the amounts transferred by the
plaintiff’s husband on monthly basis was towards the cost / price
of the car is not logical because the car stands registered in the
name of defendant and also defendant possessed that car and
even sold the same further. The defendant must have received
consideration against the sale of car bearing no. DL1Z-2895
Toyota Etios. In the above circumstances, the husband of the
plaintiff was not liable to transfer such payments / installments
in favour of the defendant.
15. Defendant cannot be permitted to have double
benefit i.e. receiving the amount of Rs.5,77,782/- from the
plaintiff and also having the car and receiving the consideration
amount on sale of the same. The liability to pay the amount to
the plaintiff’s husband arises as defendant has failed to explain
the justification of receiving the amounts on monthly basis.
CS No. 01/2022
page no. 9
of 11
-- 9 of 11 --
16. No document such as agreement or MOU has been
placed on record to show that there was any arrangement
between the plaintiff’s husband and defendant to the effect that
on payment of Rs.16,040/- monthly, the car would be used by the
plaintiff’s husband. Defendant has given the suggestion to the
plaintiff that her husband gave installments to defendant as he
had taken the car on lease / contract basis from him. However, no
such lease document has been filed on record. This, plea
therefore, is not established / proved. On the other hand,
plaintiff has been able to prove her case through her testimony
and documents such as bank statements. The legal notice sent by
plaintiff has not been responded by the defendant.
17. During the course of arguments, the issue of
limitation has been raised on behalf of defendant in the present
proceedings. As per schedule attached to Limitation Act 1963,
the suit for recovery of money / lent can be filed within a period
of three years when the loan is paid. In the present case, the
amounts have been paid to the defendant on monthly basis and
therefore cause of action for recovery would arise after the
completion of loan amount. Admittedly, monthly amount was
transferred to the account of defendant with effect from
20.06.2016 till 18.04.2019. The last payment was given on
18.04.2019 and thereafter plaintiff’s husband expired. The suit
has been filed on 03.01.2022 by the plaintiff i.e. within three
years after the death of her husband. Accordingly, suit is held to
be filed within the period of limitation.
CS No. 01/2022
page no. 10
of 11
-- 10 of 11 --
18. In view of the aforesaid observations, it is concluded
that defendant is liable to pay the amount of Rs.5,77,782/- to the
plaintiff.
19. Accordingly, plaintiff is entitled to recovery of
Rs.5,77,782/- along with pendente-lite and future interest @ 8
per cent per annum from filing of the suit till realization along
with costs of the suit from the defendant. Suit is decreed in
favour of plaintiff.
20. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
21. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open court
on 16th September 2025
(Anju Bajaj Chandna)
Principal District & Sessions Judge
New Delhi District, Patiala House Courts
New Delhi/16.09.2025
CS No. 01/2022
page no. 11
of 11
-- 11 of 11 --