THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO A.S.1109 of 2001 JUDGMENT: The plaintiff in O.S.No.457 of 1990 on the file of the court of Principal Senior Civil Judge, Guntur is the appellant herein. The suit one was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,95,344.25 paise. The allegations in the plaint goes to show that the plaintiff is carrying on business in motor spare parts under the name and style of Dyayaray Madina Mechanical works and is a registered contractor for the vehicle of the defendant-Guntur Municipal Corporation. In case of urgent repairs under the oral instructions of the Vehicle Inspector of the defendant and on report from the driver of the concerned vehicle of the defendant, the plaintiff was attending the repairs and thereafter the estimates were placed before the Council and tenders will be called for and accepted and the amounts are paid to the plaintiff. For the repairs works carried out and the spare parts supplied by the plaintiff in 1989 tenders were called for and plaintiff filed a tender on 31-01-1990 for Rs.43,340/- and the said amount was paid by the Commissioner. Subsequently, repairs worth Rs.9,970/- were carried out and estimates were given and they were also not paid. Further, the plaintiff has carried out repairs to the vehicle of the defendant for a value of Rs.1,27,145/- for which the bills were submitted and that were also not paid. Therefore, the suit was filed for recovery of the said amount with interest. The defendant filed a written statement denying most of the allegations in the plaint. The nature of the work or the repairs said to have been undertaken by the plaintiff and also the quantum of the amount due were disputed. It is further averred in paras. 4 to 6 of the written statement as under:-- “(4) The defendant submits that whenever a vehicle needs repairs the Automobile supervisor will prepare the estimates for the repairs with the required spare parts along with the expenditure required and submit the same to the office for the sanction. The said estimates will be placed before the council for approval. Then only the repairs will be entrusted to the repair or by adopting tender system or quotation system as the case may be. (5) Whenever any work is proposed to be taken up for execution the tenders or the quotation will be called for and the observing tender will be accepted by the competent authority. After that the work order will be issued to the contractor/ After completing the work and after getting it certified by the competent authority payment will be made to the contractor. A contractor can claim payment only if his tender is accepted, work order is issued, the work is completed and then certified by the Engineer, but not on the basis of the filing tenders. The contention of the plaintiff that an amount of Rs.43,340/- was with held for want of signature of the Municipal Commissioner is false and baseless. (6) The plaintiff has filed the tenders to carry out the repairs to certain vehicles on 31-01-1990. The tenders are not decided till today on administrative grounds. The plaintiff was never asked to supply the spare parts and to carry out the repairs as claimed by him. The defendant fails to understand how the plaintiff has supplied the spare parts without any written orders and without entering into agreement with the defendant. The plaint is silent as to whom the plaintiff handed over the spare parts and against whose acknowledgment. No entries whatsoever have been recorded in the connected log books to determine the supply of the spare parts and as such the payment made by the plaintiff cannot be made. The plaintiff is not entitled to demand any amount towards the alleged works carried out by him for which the tenders for repairs work was not called for.” Further, the defendant also denied that the plaintiff has repaired any vehicles. The defendant asked the plaintiff to produce the documentary proof about his claims and when the notice was sent to the address given by him, it was refused and it could not be served. Therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues have been framed for trial. 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the amounts claimed in the memo of calculation? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the interest? If so at what rate? 3. To what relief On behalf of the plaintiff PW.1 was examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-47. On behalf of the defendant no oral or documentary evidence is adduced. After considering the evidence on record, the lower court has accepted the plea of first two claims and dismissed the claim so far as it relates to a sum of Rs.1,27,145/-. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the present appeal is filed. Now the points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for an amount of Rs.1,27,415/- which was disallowed by the lower court? 2. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge is legal and sustainable? POINTS:- The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the lower court having accepted the two claims has failed to extend the same reasons with regard to third claim and particularly so when the defendant has not adduced any evidence and when the records sought to be produced and directed to be produced was not produced by the defendant. The learned counsel for the plaintiff also sought to rely upon a similar case in O.S.No.483 of 1990 which was filed by M/s.Sri Rama Auto Mobiles, Guntur, which was decreed by the lower court for the total sum and against which the appeal was filed and it was dismissed. The contention of the counsel for the appellant relying on the judgment in the other suit has no validity. In that suit, the claim is quite different and documents were filed by the plaintiff to establish the claim. It is fundamental whenever any claim for money is made on the basis of the goods supplied or on the basis of the work said to have been done i.e., as repairs claimed in this case, the burden is on the plaintiff to prove the same. An inference has to be drawn against the plaintiff for failure to produce the documents in support of the third claim when documents could be filed with regard to other claims. According to the evidence of the plaintiff, in the year 1990 he supplied spare parts worth Rs.1,27,145/- to the defendant-municipality and that amount was not paid. It was also further the evidence of plaintiff that he supplied the spare parts for the work shop of the defendant and there is a supervisor for the vehicles of the defendant and the supervisor prepares the list of spares needed and issues slips to the contractor for supply of spare parts. He claims to be a registered municipal contractor and as per the slips issued by the supervisor, he supplied the above spare parts. Evidently, Exs.A-2 to A-36 does not relate to the third claim. In cross examination, he stated work orders were given to him in respect of the repairs to the vehicles for which tenders were called for; without looking into the list he cannot say the number of the vehicle for which the tenders were called for. He also admitted that it is only after the approval of the estimates by the Council, tenders will be called for. He also further admitted he was not having any shop of spare parts of automobiles and he used to purchase the spare parts from other shop and supply the same to the defendant-Municipality. According to him, he does not have any bills to show that he has purchased the spare parts from the shop of others. He also admitted that he has no licence in the name of the mechanical shop which is claimed as owner. He also admitted that he issued Ex.A-38 under the care of address of Sri Rama Auto Mobiles. He has further admitted that his mechanical shop has no address. Even according to him, only after the tenders were called for, the particulars of the spare parts supplied will be entered in the register. Therefore, the evidence of plaintiff is quite clear that there will not be any ad hoc procedure for undertaking the repairs or for supply of the spare parts. It is very difficult to believe that the plaintiff being a contractor should claim to be a registered contractor would have chosen to supply the spare parts even without an order or without a record with him. The plaintiff has also not examined the persons from whom he has produced the spare parts and supplied the same to the Municipality. He is also not able to give the particulars of the vehicle numbers for which the spares were required and his evidence is also not clear as to where the spare parts were supplied. The allegations in the plaint are not clear as to whether the 3rd claim which was rejected by the lower court relates to the spare parts value or the repair value of the vehicle. The defendant has not summoned any of the supervisors of the defendant to prove his contention. His evidence is also very vague as to whom he had delivered the spare parts. The name of the driver of the vehicle; the name of the vehicle itself are not even mentioned by him. The legal notice is also silent on these aspects. Therefore, when the plaint allegations are very vague and the evidence of PW.1 is not convincing, the plaintiff cannot plead that a decree should be passed on the basis of the lack of evidence on the side of the defendant. The obligation of the defendant to rebut the evidence of plaintiff arises only when the plaintiff adduced some evidence of reliable nature to support his claim. The lower court has considered the evidence on record and the solitary evidence of PW.1 does not inspire confidence and therefore the court below has rightly rejected the claim and there are no grounds to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned judge. Accordingly the points are answered. In the result, the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No costs. _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 09-08-2011 TSNR