Final Order 1

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: S.C.No.10232020 1
Lodged on : 17/02/2020
Decided on 01/07/2022
Duration on 02Ys.04Ms.14Ds.
MHCC010020942020
IN THE BOMBAY CITY CIVIL COURT AT BOMBAY
S.C.SUIT NO.1023 OF 2020
Ranvir Shivdayal Shekhawat
age 40 Residing at Flat No.2904,
A Wing, Flying Kite, Neptune Living Point
Bhandup (W), Mumbai78 …. Plaintiff
V/s
Colour Coats
A firm having its address at
C5, KBM Compound, End of
Military Road, Near Ashok
Nagar, Marol, Andheri(E),
Mumbai400 059. ….Defendant
Appearance:
Ld.Counsel Jagdish Choudhary for plaintiff.
None for defendant.
CORAM : H.H.J.SHRI.A.V.Kharkar
DATE: 01st July, 2022 C.R.NO.15
EXPARTE JUDGMENT
This is suit for recovery amount of Rs.2,45,442/ with
interest.
The facts in brief are as follows.
2. The defendant is engaged the work of painting furniture.
They have represented that they provide best cealing of
furniture. Upon such representations the plaintiff allotted
-- 1 of 6 --
S.C.No.10232020 2
furniture painting work to the defendant. After measurement,
the defendant sent quotation for an amount of Rs.65,300/
including charges for cleaning, covering and transportation. The
plaintiff has deposited entire consideration. However, the
defendant did not deliver back furniture. As defendant did not
return back furniture or complete the work, the plaintiff was
constrained to engage service of carpenter and got made new
furniture. The plaintiff issue notice to the defendant calling
upon them to pay an amount. The defendant did not pay the
amount and hence, this suit for recovery of the amount. Writ of
summons was issued. My predecessor by order dtd.4/10/2021
ordered the suit to proceed exparte against defendant, as the
defendant failed to appear despite service.
3. Following points arise for determination.
Sr.No. ISSUES FINDINGS
1. Whether the plaintiff paid an
amount of Rs.65,000/ to the
defendant for colouring of
furniture.?
In the affirmative
2. Whether the plaintiff proves that
defendant failed to colour his
furniture as agreed.?
In the affirmative
3. Whether the plaintiff proves that
the defendant failed to return the
furniture.?
In the affirmative
4. Whether the plaintiff proves that
he incurred costs of
Rs.1,50,000/ for new furniture.?
In the negative
5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled
for damages as claimed for.?
In the negative
6. Whether plaintiff is entitled to
recover Rs.65,300/.?
In the affirmative
7. What order.? As per final order
-- 2 of 6 --
S.C.No.10232020 3
REASONS
4. Considering the evidence on record and for the sake of
brevity issue nos. 1 to 6 are clubbed together for the purpose of
reasoning.
5. The support of case plaintiff has filed affidavit of evidence
Exh7. He deposed that on the representation by the defendant,
he had allotted furniture painting work to the defendant. He
had paid entire consideration of Rs.65,000/. Despite paying
the consideration, the defendant did not complete task nor they
returned furniture. The plaintiff was constrained to get new
furniture made at the cost of Rs.1,50,000/. In support of his
case he is relied upon copy of quotation Exh7. Original cash
deposit slip Exh10, Photocopy of the passbook Exh11,
Original legal notice and original RPAD receipts Exh12 colly.
Ongoing through the evidence and deposit slip at Exh10 and
photocopy Exh11 it is seen that the amount of Rs.65,300/ was
paid to the defendant. The copy of the quotation Exh7 shows
that the defendant had given quotation of Rs.65,300/ for
painting furniture of the plaintiff. As the matter is proceeded
exparte there is no impediment is relying upon the oral
testimony and document on record to show that amount of
Rs.65,300/ was paid to the defendant for colour quoting of this
furniture and that the plaintiff did not complete the task or
return the furniture. The plaintiff is therefore entitled to recover
amount of Rs.65,300/ from the defendant.
6. The next aspect is whether the plaintiff got made furniture
worth of Rs.1,50,000/ and whether the plaintiff is entitled to
recover that amount from the defendant.
-- 3 of 6 --
S.C.No.10232020 4
7. Apart from the oral testimony of the plaintiff, there is
evidence on record to show that the plaintiff has incurred the
costs of Rs.1,50,000/ for making new furniture. Even otherwise
the plaintiff cannot claim remote damages from the defendant.
Hence, point nos.1,2,3 and 6 are answered in the affirmative
and point nos.4 and 5 are answered in the negative. Following
order is passed.
ORDER
1. The suit is decreed with costs.
2. The plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of
Rs.65,300/ from the defendant with interest at the rate of
9% p.a. from the date of suit till realization.
3. Decree be drawn up accordingly.
Date : 01/07/2022 (A.V.Kharkar)
Judge
City Civil & Sessions Court
Gr.Bombay
Dictated on : 01/07/2022
Transcribed on : 04/07/2022
HHJ Signed on :
-- 4 of 6 --
S.C.No.10232020 5
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
06/07/2022 3.00pm (Mrs.P. P. Khanvilkar)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
room no.)
SHRI A.V.Kharkar
(C.R. No.15)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ ORDER
01/07/2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
06/07/2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 06/07/2022
-- 5 of 6 --
S.C.No.10232020 6
“CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SIGNED
JUDGMENT/ORDER.”
28/06/2022 3.00pm (Mrs.P. P. Khanvilkar)
UPLOAD DATE AND TIME NAME OF STENOGRAPHER
Name of the Judge (With Court
room no.)
SHRI A.V.Kharkar
(C.R. No.15)
Date of Pronouncement of
JUDGMENT/ ORDER
13/06/2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER signed by P.O.
on
28/06/2022
JUDGMENT/ORDER uploaded on 28/06/2022
-- 6 of 6 --