1 2025:CGHC:17412 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR FA No. 37 of 2020 Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Rajnandgaon Old Circuit House Road Rajnandgaon Through The Principal E. Rangaswamy S/o Shri B. Eattiappan At Present Aged About 54 Years Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Rajnandgaon Old Circuit House Road Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant/Defendant versus Messrs C.D.O. Security And Public Help Line Service R/o D/13, Indira Market, Near Railway Station, Bhilai Tahsil And District Durg (C.G.) Through- Manoj Shukla S/o Shri R.S. Shukla House No. 46, Tata Line Ward 28, Cantonment, Bhilai, Tahsil And Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent/Plaintiff For Appellant : Ms. Deepali Pandey, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. C Jayant K Rao, Advocate (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judgment on Board 16/04/2025 1. This first appeal has been preferred by the appellant/defendant under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the judgment and decree dated 14.11.2019 (Annexure-A/1) passed by Third Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon (CG) in Civil Suit No.28B/2016, whereby decree of Rs.78,398/- has been granted in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, which BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP Date: 2025.04.21 10:52:35 +0530 2 has been directed to be paid by the appellant/defendant along with interest @ 6% per annum. (For sake of convenience, the parties would be referred hereinafter as per their status before the trial Court) 2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that, the plaintiff filed civil suit for recovery of Rs.78,398/- stating inter alia that the defendant had taken service of the plaintiff to provide security services and agreement was also executed between them. While performing security services by the plaintiff, incident of theft of two computers was occurred on 01.9.2015 in the defendant/school, as such, against outstanding amount of Rs.1,41,963/-, which has to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff, the defendant deducted Rs.78,398/- for the loss of two computers from the above amount and Rs.38,398/- was paid to the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff filed civil suit on the ground that said recovery of Rs.78,398/- is against law, as such, it be directed to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant along with interest. 3. The defendant filed its reply stating inter alia that an agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant to provide security services to the defendant and in that agreement, it was specifically provided that contracting agency (plaintiff) shall be responsible for any damage to the property/equipment/material of the defendant school, by its personnel during the course of or consequent to the work being rendered. It is further contended that since the incident of theft occurred because of the negligence of the employee of the plaintiff/agency, therefore, they are responsible to compensate value of stolen computers worth Rs.78,398/- i.e. total worth of two stolen computers, which has been deducted from the amount paid to the plaintiff by the defendant, as such, the plaintiff is not entitled to get any amount from the defendant. 3 4. Based on the pleading of the both the parties, the learned trial Court framed three issues, recorded evidence adduced by the parties and vide impugned judgment and decree, partly allowed civil suit filed by the plaintiff by holding that, since the defendant failed to prove cost of two stolen computers to the tune of Rs.78,398/-, therefore, making aforesaid deduction by the defendant, is on higher side, instead there of, the decree was granted in favour of the plaintiff for Rs.38,398/- and directed to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff against said deduction of Rs.78,398/-. Being aggrieved by the same, the defendant/appellant filed instant appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant would submit that as per FIR, cost of the two stolen computers was Rs.40,000/- each, against which deduction of total amount of Rs.78,398/- has been made from the amount payable to the plaintiff. She would further submit that said amount has already been taken into consideration by the learned trial Court and having considered the cost of the computers, the said amount cannot be held to be on higher side. Despite that the learned trial Court has not considered the actual cost of the two stolen computers and against which only nominal amount has been taken into consideration for deduction against loss caused to the defendant. Therefore, it is prayed that the appeal may be allowed and judgment and decree passed by the trial Court may be set aside. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff supports the impugned judgment and decree 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court. 8. During the course of submission, when specific question was posed to learned counsel for the defendant/appellant that, whether the defendant has proved any bill/receipt in respect of the cost of said two stolen computers, she 4 submits that no such bill/receipt has been filed or proved before the trial Court. With regard to the price of the computer, she referred FIR bearing Crime No.576/15 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Distt. Rajnandgaon for the offence under Section 380 IPC, which was registered against unknown person. But that FIR has not been proved, rather only photo copy of the same has been filed, therefore, it cannot be held to be valid document to determine the cost of the computers. Even otherwise, in the said FIR, total cost of two computers has been mentioned as Rs.40,000/-. Neither in the pleading (written statement) nor in the deposition of Principal of the defendant school, cost of said stolen computers has been mentioned nor it has been proved that from which shop those computers were purchased. 9. Perusal of the record of the trial Court shows that no cogent evidence has been adduced by the defendant/appellant to substantiate the contention that impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court is perverse and illegal so far as it relates to the cost of said two stolen computers is concerned, in respect of which, the defendant/appellant has deducted Rs.78,398/- from the outstanding amount of Rs.1,41,963/- payable by the defendant to the plaintiff. 10. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, hence, the same is affirmed. 11. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chadnravanshi) Judge Bini 5