ASEB Vs. ADDITIONAL CHIEF ENGINEER(E) BARAK VALLEY & HILL ZONE CENTRAL ASSAM ELECTRICY DISTRIBUTION CO LTD AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Judgment and order dated 03.10.2007 passed by Additional Deputy Commissioner, Haflong in the district of N.C.Hills in Money Suit No. 4 of 2004 is under challenge in the present first appeal. The learned trial court by the aforesaid judgment decreed the suit of the plaintiff in entirety for Rs.1,48,617/-. After admission of the appeal by this High Court, an interim order was passed directing the appellant/defendants to make deposit of Rs.70,000/- with the Registry of this court and on such deposit being made, the plaintiff/respondent withdrew the amount by an order of this court passed on 24.5.2010.

(2.) The sole respondent as plaintiff instituted Money Suit No. 4 of 2004 in the Court of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Halflong for realization of Rs.1,48,617/-.along with interest @ 18 % per month. The pleaded case of the plaintiff is that on 5.12.1997 and 5.1.1998, the defendants No. 4 and 5 entrusted him for repairing and supply of spare parts of TATA Motor vehicle bearing No. AS-08-0355. Accordingly, repairing was done and necessary spare parts were fitted on the vehicle . Thereafter, the vehicle was delivered in good condition to the departmental driver Tarachand Sharma who was assigned by defendants No. 4 and 5 and a delivery challan was also acknowledged from him.

(3.) On being summoned, defendants appeared and submitted written stament wherein the defendants have stated their own facts parawise. Defendants stated that the plaintiff was directed to carry out repairing works and to hand over damaged parts to the Divisional store for audit inspection and the intimation to that effect was given to his firm to take up the work in consultation with defendant No. 4 pending formal work order after completion of the works and approval from DVRC. The defendants did not deny the averments made in para- 4 and 5 of the plaint that spare parts were handed over to driver Tarachand Sharma but asserted that the plaintiff did not deposit the damaged spare parts as instructed by defendant No.5 and also did not submit the cash memo for the spare parts supplied. It was however admitted that the challan copy as signed by Tarachand Sharma on 5.4.1998 have been presented by firm vide letter dated 10.2.2000 as enclosure of the bill for Rs.1,48,617. By para-6 of the their own facts, defendants appeared to have pleaded that the plaintiff was entrusted to do some specified job but without further order, he performed more jobs and submitted bills. Plaintiff did not produce any record to substantiate his claim for payment and so the suit is liable to be dismissed.