JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Appeal Suit has been filed, under Section 96 of CPC, read with Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC, against the judgment and decree, dated 22.01.2015 made in OS.No.7450 of 2012 by the XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.) 1. This appeal suit has been filed, by the Plaintiff, against the judgment and decree, dated 22.01.2015 made in OS.No.7450 of 2012 by the XV Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.11,37,157.40/- with interest at 18% p.a. from the date of the plaint till realization. 3. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Plaintiff is a common carrier for reward engaged by the Defendant for transportation of their materials and products all over India. The Defendant had placed vehicle contract vouchers and the Plaintiff rendered their transportation services from Chennai to various destinations in India. The Defendant had accepted the offer made by the Plaintiff and approached the Plaintiff and appointed them as their carriers for their safe carriage and delivery. The Defendant had entrusted various consignments to the Plaintiff on various dates under various consignment notes. The Plaintiff, acknowledging such entrustment of consignments, had issued various goods consignment notes on various dates to the Defendant. The Plaintiff had delivered all the consignments covered under various goods consignment notes. After effecting delivery, the Plaintiff had raised their bills on the Defendant towards their freight charges. The Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the bill amount within 30 days from the date of the bill and as far as the freight bills are concerned, it was further agreed by the Defendant that if the Defendant do not pay the freight charges within 30 days, they will be liable to pay interest on the bill amount at 18% per annum. The Defendant, in spite of repeated requests and demand letters, did not make the payment for the freight bills. The Defendant has paid only a sum of Rs.3,78,042/- on 01.04.2012 by way of a cheque. The Plaintiff had issued a legal notice to the Defendant, dated 26.09.2012 and the same was returned as “left”. Hence the suit was filed for recovery of money. 4. The Defendant has paid only a sum of Rs.3,78,042/- on 01.04.2012 by way of a cheque. The Plaintiff had issued a legal notice to the Defendant, dated 26.09.2012 and the same was returned as “left”. Hence the suit was filed for recovery of money. 4. The suit was resisted by the Defendant, by filing a written statement, contending that the Plaintiff is making claims, without any basis and based on false invoices, which are in no way concerned with the transactions between them. The payments would be made only for the proper services rendered with correct invoices pertaining to Vehicle Contract Voucher, Vehicle Utilization Voucher issued by the Defendant and submitted along with the details of the VUV/CVC and original proof of delivery document. The Plaintiff cannot raise invoices if the above mentioned requirements are not complied with. It is the duty of the Plaintiff to maintain proper track records, invoices, delivery challans, vouchers and other documentary proof pertaining to all the transactions. The Plaintiff did not carry out the services as set out in the plaint. The invoices have not been received by the Defendant, except the nine invoices for a total sum of Rs.3,59,978/-. The Defendant had made an advance payment of Rs.3,44,442/- to the Plaintiff vide cheque, dated 11.09.2009. This advance amount has been set off and there is a difference of Rs.11,589/- in payment and the same is on account of deductions made towards penalty and excess charges claimed by the Plaintiff. The Defendant has not acknowledged the delivery of consignment and not agreed to pay the outstanding amount as claimed by the Plaintiff. There is no due payable by the Defendant to the Plaintiff and the entire claim made by the Plaintiff is fictitious. The documents filed by the Plaintiff do not relate to the Defendant. Most of the documents do not carry details of the Vehicle Utilization Voucher or Vehicle Contract Voucher. There are no proper endorsements or acknowledgments on the invoices. Most of the invoices raised are time barred and are not legitimate. The notice was sent to old address and the Defendant had vacated the premises in the year 2011 and therefore, the notice was returned with an endorsement as "left". In such facts, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the Trial Court. The notice was sent to old address and the Defendant had vacated the premises in the year 2011 and therefore, the notice was returned with an endorsement as "left". In such facts, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed by the Trial Court. Before the Trial Court, on the side of the Plaintiff, PW.1 was examined and Ex.A1 to Ex.A14 were marked. On the side of the Defendants, D.W.1 was examined and Ex.B1 and Ex.B2 were marked. The Trial Court decreed the suit partly. Aggrieved over the decree amount, the Plaintiff has preferred this appeal suit. 6. This Court heard the submissions of the learned counsel on either side. 7. The learned counsel for the Appellant has submitted that the suit was filed for recovery of amount and the Appellant rendered their transport services to the Respondent from Chennai to various destinations in India and the Appellant submitted the bills for freight charges. The Respondent has to pay the charges within 30 days. If they failed to pay that amount, they have to pay that amount with interest at 18% p.a. The Respondent did not make any payment and so, the suit was filed for recovery of money for Rs.11,37,157/- with interest. The learned counsel would further submit that the legal notice was issued and that out of 34 freight bills, the Respondent admitted 9 bills and paid Rs.3.78 lakhs and hence, the suit ought to have been decreed, but the court below did not appreciate the oral and documentary evidence and erroneously decreed the suit partly and he would pray for allowing this appeal. 8. The learned counsel for the Respondent would submit that the Plaintiff themselves admitted in the suit that the notice was returned as left and the Company was shifted to other place and that Ex.A9 notice was sent to a different address and that the Plaintiff has not filed the vehicle contract vouchers, consignment notes, acknowledgement of the delivery of the goods, vehicle utilization vouchers and that the suit is barred by limitation. The learned counsel would further submit that the Trial Court, appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, came to the proper conclusion and hence, he would pray for dismissal of this appeal. 9. This Court considered the submissions made on either side and also perused the materials placed on record. 10. The learned counsel would further submit that the Trial Court, appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, came to the proper conclusion and hence, he would pray for dismissal of this appeal. 9. This Court considered the submissions made on either side and also perused the materials placed on record. 10. PW.1 has deposed that the Plaintiff is a common carrier for reward engaged by the Defendant for transportation of their materials and products all over India. The Defendant placed vehicle contract vouchers and they rendered their transportation services to the Defendant from Chennai to various destinations in India. He has further deposed that after delivering the consignment, they raised their bills. The Defendant has to pay the bill amount within 30 days. If they do not pay the freight charges within 30 days, they are liable to pay interest on the bill amount at 18% p.a. In spite of repeated request, they did not make the payment. The Defendant has paid only a sum of Rs.3,78,042/- and upon various reminders for the payment of outstanding bill, the Defendant did not make any arrangement for the payment. Then they sent the demand notice on 26.09.2012. It was returned as left. The Defendant wantonly evading the service of the legal notice. The total liability is Rs.11,37,157/-. 11. DW.1 has deposed that the Plaintiff had approached them for rendering services as per the standard practice in transportation. The Plaintiff is aware that the payment would be made only on invoices for the services rendered with correct details of vehicle contract voucher, vehicle utilization voucher and the original proof of delivery. It is very vital in the field of transport business. The Plaintiff cannot claim or raise invoices with them if the above mentioned requirements are not complied with and services are proved to be performed. It is the duty of the Plaintiff to maintain proper track records, invoices, delivery challans, vouchers and other documentary proof, pertaining to all the transactions. He has further deposed that the Plaintiff did not carry out the services as set out in the plaint. The statement is totally false. They had made an advance payment of Rs.3,44,442/-. This advance amount has been set off against 9 invoices raised by the Plaintiff. Hence, there is a difference of Rs.15,000/-. He has further deposed that the Plaintiff had admitted in the cross that they had paid the advance amount. The statement is totally false. They had made an advance payment of Rs.3,44,442/-. This advance amount has been set off against 9 invoices raised by the Plaintiff. Hence, there is a difference of Rs.15,000/-. He has further deposed that the Plaintiff had admitted in the cross that they had paid the advance amount. It is very clear that the Defendant is not liable to pay any amount as claimed. The documents filed by the Plaintiff do not relate to them. Most of the documents are not clear. There is no proper endorsement or acknowledgement. Further, the invoices raised are time barred. Notice was sent to the old address. The Plaintiff has failed to produce valid invoices, valid proof of delivery concerning the transactions claimed in the plaint during the trial and therefore, the Plaintiff is not entitled for the claim. 12. The Plaintiff has to prove that they had transactions with the Defendant and to prove the transaction, they have to file material documents available with them, such as, vehicle contract voucher, copy of the consignment notes, acknowledgement for the delivery of goods, vehicle utilization voucher. It is the duty of the Plaintiff to maintain proper track records, invoices, delivery challans, vouchers and other documents, pertaining to all the transactions. It is very vital in the field of transportation business. 13. PW.1 in the cross examination has deposed that he is aware of the procedure, called “vehicle contract voucher”. Based on VCV, they carry out transportation and they placed the vehicle contract vouchers and they rendered their services. He has further deposed that the vehicle contract voucher are not filed on his side and the offer letter of the Defendant is not filed on his side and he has not filed any consignment notes on his side. He has also not filed various goods consignment notes issued by them. He has further deposed that the Defendant's signature and the acknowledgement is not found in Ex.A1 (series). 14. From the above evidence, it is clear that the Plaintiff has not proved its case, by filing required documents. The Trial Court, appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, came to the proper conclusion and hence, the impugned judgment is proper and no interference is warranted by this Court. 15. In fine, this appeal is dismissed. No costs.