HIMATSINGKA MOTOR WORKS LTD. Vs. HARANATH BARUA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the Plaintiff Messrs. Himatsingka Motor Works Ltd. Plaintiff is a limited company having its registered office at Satri -bari Road, Gauhati. The case of the Plaintiff is that the Defendant Sri Haranath Barua used to purchase petrol and motor parts from the Plaintiff on credit by opening an account with the Plaintiff's shop. From time to time the Defendant made payments. The Plaintiff kept an account book maintained in regular course of business and all the receipts and payments made by Defendant were entered in the account book. The Defendant had transactions with the Plaintiff from the 1st November 1951 till the 22nd August 1954 when the account was closed and the outstanding balance of the Plaintiff against the Defendant on that date was Rs. 6,194 -13 -6. The Defendant has not paid the said amount. On these facts Plaintiff has claimed Rs. 6,969/4'/ -. A sum of Rs. 6,194 -13 -6 is claimed as the principal amount and Rs. 774 -6 -0 is claimed as interest at the rate of 121/2%.

(2.) THE Defendant denied Plaintiff's claim. The Case of the Defendant as set put in the written statement is that he purchased a lorry from the Plaintiff on hire -purchase system for use in his coal carrying business on the Shillong -Gauhati road. There was a verbal agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant under which the Plaintiff was to supply petrol on credit for the lorry and allow a rebate at the rate of two annas per gallon for the petrol purchased. The Plaintiff also supplied, however, petrol to other lorries plying on the same route on his own responsibility without any authority from the Defendant and added the price of the petrol supplied to the other lorries to the bill of the Defendant. The rebate was also stopped by the Plaintiff. This resulted in some misunderstanding between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the petrol supply was stopped. The present suit has been filed with a view to harass the Defendant. It is denied that the Plaintiff had entered all the receipts in his book. The Defendant has further claimed that a sum of Rs. 400/ - paid to the Plaintiff by mutual agreement is still lying with Mr. J.N. Bawri of Shillong. The Court below framed the following three issues:

(3.) THE trial Court held that the Plaintiff has failed to prove the liability of the Defendant mainly on the ground that he failed to produce' the credit memo book. As to the contention that the Plaintiff granted rebate of two annas to the Defendant, the Court below has rejected the plea of the Defendant. The Plaintiff in this appeal has challenged the finding of the Court below that the Plaintiff has Jailed to prove the amount due from the Defendant and from the account books, according to the Plaintiff, it is fully established that the Defendant is liable to pay the amount claimed by the Plaintiff.