Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 202 (TRI)

State of Tripura v. Shubhra Sankar Laskar

2021-11-11

S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY, S.TALAPATRA

body2021
JUDGMENT S. Talapatra, J. - This appeal under Section 96 of the CPC arises from the judgment dated 17.12.2018 delivered in Money Suit No.11 of 2015 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.3, West Tripura, Agartala. 2. The respondent herein instituted the suit for realization of money to the extent of Rs.16,25,609/- which the respondent defrayed for execution of three works viz. [a] Construction of shopping complex at Lembucherra. [b] Construction of School Building at Lefunga H.S. [c] Construction of CHC Building at Mohanpur. 3. The respondent was entrusted to execute those work as the implementing officer. Those works were, according to the respondent, duly sanctioned and the respondent was persuaded to complete the work within a time-frame. Accordingly, he had mobilized the materials and completed the works. After the completion, detailed account of expenditure was prepared and furnished. Subsequently, re-assessment was made by the superior authority. During the re-assessment, it was found that the works as noted above had been executed following the specification. To complete the works, the respondent [the plaintiff in the suit] made the following expenditure for: [a] Construction of shopping complex at Lembucherra = Rs.2,92,585.00 [b] Construction of School Building at Lefunga H.S. = Rs.2,73,458.00 [c] Construction of CHC Building at Mohanpur = Rs.7,09,566.00 Total = Rs.12,75,609.00 The said amount was spent in the year 2009-2010 and requisition for payment was made with all necessary papers on 21.08.2010. Verification/assessment of the work was completed on 01.03.2013 and 14.08.2013 respectively. 4. The respondent had arranged the money from his sources in order to complete the works within the time as stipulated by the superior authority. Since, the said money was not paid, the suit was instituted claiming the relief inter alia, to issue a money decree for Rs.16,25,609/- [Rs.12,75,609/-] as the money that was spent for execution of the projects and Rs.3,50,000/- as compensation for non-payment the said money in time. The respondent claimed interest for non-payment of the said money for long time. 5. The appellants [the defendants in the suit] did not submit any pleadings [the written statement] and adduce any evidence in support of their contention as raised in the form of argument. The appellants did not at all introduce any kind of evidence. The respondent claimed interest for non-payment of the said money for long time. 5. The appellants [the defendants in the suit] did not submit any pleadings [the written statement] and adduce any evidence in support of their contention as raised in the form of argument. The appellants did not at all introduce any kind of evidence. For purpose of determination as it appears, mostly for convenience the following issues were framed by the Civil Judge: ISSUES i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and nature? ii) Whether there is any cause of action for filing the suit? iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for a money decree? iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for money decree for Rs.16,25,609/- (Rs.12,75,609/- (Principal) Rs.3,50,000/- (delay compensation) entitling the plaintiff to realize the money from the defendants and interest thereon? v) Whether the parties are entitled to any relief/reliefs? 6. The respondent adduced himself as PW-1 whereas his mother was adduced as PW-2, inasmuch as the respondent has pleaded that he took the money from his mother. That apart, he introduced four documentary evidence viz. the original pass book of Monju Basak Das and Nripendra Chandra Das [Exbt.1], the original pass book of PW-1 [Exbt.2], the re-assessment report dated 01.03.2013 and 03.07.2013 [Exbt.3] and the notice claiming payment of the said amount [Exbt.4]. 7. The Civil Judge has observed that the payment that the respondent made for execution of work, as a matter of practice, was to be paid to him inasmuch as he mobilized the fund for execution from various sources. When the respondent pressed for payment of the said money, there had been assessment and re-assessment of those works as referred above. The final report was submitted on 01.03.2013 and 24.08.2013. Thereafter, the following observation has been made by the Civil Judge : “Exbt.3 is the copy of reassessment report dated 01.03.2013 and 03.07.2013. The said document is also in consonance with the version of PW1 and the same remained unrebutted during the cross-examination of PW1 made by the defendant side. The defendant also did not adduce any evidence contrary to the findings of the said re-assessment report.” As the said payment was not made even after the reassessment, the respondent claimed the said amount of Rs.12,75,609/-, the principle amount that he had spent for execution of those works. 8. The defendant also did not adduce any evidence contrary to the findings of the said re-assessment report.” As the said payment was not made even after the reassessment, the respondent claimed the said amount of Rs.12,75,609/-, the principle amount that he had spent for execution of those works. 8. PW-2, mother of the respondent has testified that on two occasions, the respondent [the plaintiff] took money from her. On 07.01.2011, the respondent [PW-1] took Rs.2,00,000/- from her and on 31.01.2011 another sum of Rs.3,33,000/- was taken. As the appellant did not dispute the pleadings nor adduced any evidence, the Civil Judge has observed that the plaintiff [the respondent] is entitled to an amount of Rs.16,25,609/- [Rs.12,75,609/-] the principle and Rs.3,50,000/- from the defendants [the appellants herein] as compensation. The money decree therefore was issued by the Civil Judge for realisation of the said amount. 9. The appellants [the defendants in the suit] have preferred this appeal contending that the suit filed by the respondent was hopelessly barred by limitation inasmuch as though the cause of action arose on 2009 but the suit was filed in the year 2015 and hence, the limitation as provided under Article 18 of the schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963 had expired much before the institution of the suit. Even the Civil Judge has failed to appreciate the provisions of Article 18 in order to examine the maintainability of the suit in view of Section 3 of the Limitation Act. There is challenge regarding computation of compensation. According to the appellants, the plaint ought to have been rejected, but non-rejection of the plaint has caused serious detriment to the appellants. 10. Mr. H. Sarkar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants has fairly submitted that so far the expenditure of Rs.12,75,609/- for execution of those works is concerned, there is no dispute inasmuch as from the reassessment report [Exbt.3], it is apparent that those works were satisfactorily executed by the respondent [the plaintiff in the suit]. According to Mr. Sarkar, learned counsel, to the extent of Rs.3,00,000.00 the award of compensation is based on no evidence and as such is not tenable in law. 11. Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent has contended robustly that for non-payment of the said principle amount for long time, the respondent is entitled to the said compensation. Sarkar, learned counsel, to the extent of Rs.3,00,000.00 the award of compensation is based on no evidence and as such is not tenable in law. 11. Mr. S. Deb, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent has contended robustly that for non-payment of the said principle amount for long time, the respondent is entitled to the said compensation. As the real expenditure made by the respondent has not been disputed by the appellants [the defendants in the suit], it can safely be presumed that the respondent has suffered diminishing of the value of that amount which the respondent mobilized. Thus, linear compensation to recoup that loss to the respondent, cannot be questioned. 12. From a bare reading of the judgment as challenged in this appeal, it appears further that the real expenditure for the works was borne by the plaintiff [the respondent herein] mobilizing the finance from various sources including from PW-2. Thus, the principle expenditure that has been made is liable to be realised from the defendants. The amount of compensation as awarded by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court No.3, West Tripura, Agartala is in no way exorbitant or unreasonable. Moreover, the plaintiff did not file any appeal to question the said computation of compensation. 13. We have given our anxious consideration to that aspect and we are of the view that the said assessment of compensation has been made following the parameter or rate of gaining interest on the said principle amount. That apart, the appellants [the defendants in the suit] did not contest the pleadings. The respondent [the plaintiff in the suit] has successfully proved that he had executed the work by spending a sum of Rs.12,75,609/-. Even after reassessment, payment was not made. Be that as it may, the said reassessment report which is a public document was never questioned by the defendant, even not in this appeal. Thus, the Civil Judge has rightly held that the plaintiff [the respondent herein] is entitled to compensation for the belated payment. The said compensation has been as stated assessed at Rs.3,50,000/-. The said computation even though is based on the interest component, but fundamentally that has been done to protect the value of the money that the respondent spent for execution of those works. Thus, the appellants’ plea cannot survive the test of scrutiny. As consequence, we affirmed the judgment as questioned in this appeal. The said computation even though is based on the interest component, but fundamentally that has been done to protect the value of the money that the respondent spent for execution of those works. Thus, the appellants’ plea cannot survive the test of scrutiny. As consequence, we affirmed the judgment as questioned in this appeal. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed. The appellants shall pay the decreetal amount within a period of sixty days from today to the respondent, failing which, it would invite payment of interest at 6% per year from the day of the decree. Draw the decree. Thereafter, send the LCRs.