AKSHAY AUTOMOBILES JORHAT Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1(u) of the CPC filed by the appellant, M/s. Akshay Automobiles, a firm which was plaintiff in connected Money Suit No. 17/85 before Asstt. District Judge, Jorhat. The suit was dismissed on contest with cost. Against the dismissal an appeal was filed before the District Judge who passed an order allowing the appeal and remanding the suit for fresh disposal.

(2.) The case for appellant/plaintiff firm is that respondent No. 3 Asstt. Engineer electrical Sub-Division, C.P.W.D. Joirampur, Arunachal Pradesh, placed his vehicle ART-750 at the workshop of the appellant/plaintiff for replacement of parts and repairs vide order dated 7-5-85. The vehicle was received on 10-5-82 and the appellant/plaintiff completed the repairing works and replacement of parts and delivered the vehicle to respondent/defendant No. 3 along with Bill No. 30/82-83 dated 29-6-82 for Rs. 22,986.20 paise as repairing charges inclusive of cost of the spare parts etc. But in spite of repeated demand the Bill remain unpaid. Thereafter notice u/S. 80(1) of CPC was served but no payment being made finally this suit for recovery of Rs. 34,709.06 paise including the repairing cost and interest (interest being Rs. 11,822.70 paise) from date of the Bill till the date of the filing of the suit along with claim of pendente lite and future interest was instituted.

(3.) Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 (Executive Engineer of the C.P.W.D.) contested the suit by presenting written statement and suit proceeded ex parte against rest of the respondent/defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 5. Respondent No. 1, is The Union of India, 2, is the Secretary, Ministry of Works and Housing, Govt. of India and respondent No. 5, is Chief Secretary, Arunachal Pradesh, Itanagar. They raised plea of the want of cause of action, non-maintainability, bar of time etc. and contended that the claim is inflated but the placing of the vehicle for repairs, replacement of the spare parts was admitted by these defendant/respondent. It is further submitted that the bill mentioned in the plaint was not traceable and in spite of their repeated request appellant/plaintiff fail to submit of the manufacturer's price list for the spare parts and the exact amount of labour charges etc. and accordingly the suit was liable to be dismissed.