Supreme Court of Mauritius, 27 avril 2026, 2026 INT 98 – Ravi Travel Tours v M Gour

1

Ravi Travel Tours v M Gour

2026 INT 98

CN 1319/2019 THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF MAURITIUS (CIVIL) In the matter of: – Ravi Travel Tours Co. Ltd Plaintiff v/s

Madhun Gour Defendant Judgment 1. By virtue of a proecipe dated 15 th October 2019, plaintiff is praying for a judgment from this Court condemning and ordering the defendant to pay the sum of Rs 1,500,000 with interests and costs as from the date of entering the present plaint until judgment. 2. Plaintiff avers that it offers transportation services for the conveyance of employees for Veranda Pointe aux Biches [VLH Ltd]. 3. It also avers that by virtue of an agreement dated 31 st January 2019 between itself and the defendant, latter had agreed to transport the employees of VLH Ltd in a 15- seater bus for a period of two years. 4. It was also stipulated in the contract that should the defendant decide, to put an end to the said contract, he shall give three months’ notice. It was thus averred that by the mere fact that the defendant ceased to provide transportation as from the 1 st June 2019 he had breached the said agreement.

5. On the other hand, the defendant denies the averments of the plaintiff and claim that he was lured into resigning from his employment as cook in order to work for the plaintiff. Defendant avers that as per the contract he agreed to 4 trips per day for the transportation of the employees but he was in fact given only 2 trips. 6. He also avers in his plea that the plaintiff deducted Rs 54,000 which amounted to two months’ fees as he had helped him to obtain the contract bus licence [PSV]. 7. Defendant further avers that the two trips per day was not enough to sustain his family and as such he informed the plaintiff on the 15 th May 2019 that he would put an end to the agreement after the three months’ notice but the plaintiff informed him that there is no need to do so as he has already made arrangements with one Vashish to convey the hotel employees. 8. He thus stated that the plaintiff had manipulated him into signing a letter dated 31 st

May 2019 and was never remunerated for the months of May and June 2019. 9. He thus moved that the case against him be dismissed. Case for the Plaintiff 10. The plaintiff was represented in Court by its director, Mr Ramsing Sowdugur. He produced the certificate of Incorporation of the company and Business Registration Card which was marked as [Doc A and A1]. He stated that the plaintiff had a contract with Veranda Pointe Aux Biches for the conveyance of its staff and produced the said contract which was marked as [Doc B]. He explained that according to the said contract, the company would pay him Rs 218, 400 for the work. Being given the number of employees who had to be conveyed to the hotel, he sub-contracted with the defendant for four trips per day. 11. However, he explained that in order to transport workers, the defendant had to obtain a special licence from the National Transport Authority which is called PSV licence. He helped the defendant to obtain this licence which latter got on the 18 th

December 2018 and produced same to the Court which was marked as [Doc C]. The plaintiff explained further that following the obtention of this licence, he contracted with the defendant on the 31 st January 2019 for two years and produced the said

agreement which was marked as [Doc D]. According to the said contract, the defendant had to drop the employees at the hotel at 07:30 and then he had 3 trips from the hotel at 16:00, 20:00 and midnight. Defendant would receive Rs 400 for each trip. 12. The plaintiff thus stated that the defendant breached the contract by submitting a termination letter dated 31 st May 2019 with effect as from 1 st June 2019 which was produced and marked as [Doc E]. 13. Thus, the plaintiff stated that he had no choice but to look for another sub-contractor who would do the trips for him and on the 1 st of June 2019 he contracted with one Mr Noyan Mahesh Gupta and produced his contract which was marked as [Doc F]. He explained further that the contract with Mr Gupta costed him Rs 24,000 more each month and Rs 670,000 for 28 months, ie the remaining duration of the contract. 14. By ending the contract, the defendant caused him a lot of stressed as he had to find another contractor to conduct the defendant’s trips and he also helped him to get his PSV licence. He said that he has a good reputation with Veranda which he therefore had to keep at all cost. He denied the version of the defendant that he didn’t get 4 trips and that he was lured into signing the [Doc E]. 15. He also produced an acknowledgment receipt [Doc G] which certifies that the defendant had received payment of Rs 27,000 for the months of April and May 2019 and a refund of Rs 9,000. 16. In cross-examination, he confirmed that the defendant was only doing two trips from the start of the contract, ie 1 st February 2019 until May 2019. He also stated despite the fact that in the agreement [Doc D] it was stipulated in writing that ‘the monthly fee is for whole duration of the Agreement irrespective of the price fluctuation of fuel during the said period,’ the plaintiff gave an increase of Rs 50 per trip as he had obtained an allowance on the diesel from the hotel. It also came out that in fact he only paid Rs 150 more per trip to Mr Gupta, the new contractor. He agreed that all payments effected to the defendant was done by way of bank transfer by the company save and except for the months of April and May which were done in cash.

17. The plaintiff explained that the defendant could only perform two trips per day as opposed to four trips, because the latter was already employed as head cook at Victoria hotel and he was therefore not available to do the evening trips. The version of the defendant put to him, which he denied. 18. Plaintiff then closed its case. Case for the Defendant 19. The defendant was then called to depose. He confirmed that there was a written agreement between the plaintiff and himself for transportation of Veranda employees. He was supposed to perform four trips per day and would receive Rs 400 per trip. He stated that it was the plaintiff who refused to give him the four trips as agreed and was allowed only two trips per day. Since this was causing him financial pressure, he went to see Mr Sowdagur on the 15 th May 2019 and informed him that he needed the other two trips which latter promised him and that he will look into the matter at the end of the month. During the same meeting the defendant informed him that if he is not given the other two trips he will provide his services for only 3 months as per the terms of contract and will then stop working for him. 20. The defendant confirmed that he was working at Hotel Victoria as cook and got to know Mr Sowdagur through a friend. He confirmed that the latter helped him to get the PSV licence but in return he had to give him Rs 55,000. He explained that when he signed [Doc E], on the same day Mr Sowdagur asked him to sign [Doc G] also relating to his payment for the month of April and May. Nonetheless, he confirmed that he never received the amount mentioned in the said document as it been deducted for the repayment of Rs 55,000 that defendant owed Mr Sowdagur in order to pay latter for assisting him in the obtention of the licence from NLTA. 21. The defendant insisted that he never wanted to end the contract but since he was getting only 2 trips it was financially difficult for him but he never intended to end the contract without giving the 3 months’ notice. It also came out in examination in chief, that it was only when he went to the National Transport Authority that he got to know that Mr Sowdagur had previously made a complaint against him.

22. In cross examination, he stated that he knows Mr Sowdagur since 2019. However, it was put to him that in fact he knows the plaintiff since 2018 and he has been receiving payments for transportation services since October and November 2018, to which he stated he cannot recall. He conceded that he obtained the PSV licence dated 18 th

December 2018, which he had mentioned earlier, with the help of Mr Sowdagur. He also confirmed having signed the two letters on the night of 31 st may 2019 but was lured into signing them. [Docs E and G]. 23. The defendant then closed his case. Analysis and Findings 24. Before embarking on to assess whether there has been a breach of contract, it is important to mentioned that there are certain undisputed facts which are as follows: a. There was a written contract between the plaintiff and the defendant for the provision of services for the transportation of employees at the rate of Rs 400 per trip evidenced by [Doc D]; b. The parties had agreed that the defendant would do 4 trips per day as per the written contract; c. Both parties agreed under oath that since the beginning of the contract the defendant only did 2 trips per day instead of 4 trips; d. Both parties agreed that as per the terms of the contract, 3 months’ notice would be given by either party in order to terminate same. 25. The clause of the contract [Doc D] on Termination by Gour Madhun provides that ‘the Service Provider may terminate this Agreement and stop acting for the Company if: By giving Company a written notice of 3 months at any time. During these 3 months the transport services should run smoothly as described in the Agreement’. 26. It is clear that as per [ Doc E], the defendant signed the ‘termination letter’ dated the 31 st of May 2019 whereby informing the plaintiff that he will cease to provide transportation service as from the 1 st of June 2019 thus committing a clear breach of the clause mentioned above under ‘Termination by Gour Madhun’ [Doc D] which required three months’ notice.

27. In the absence of any explanation buttressed by plausible evidence, it is clear that the defendant has committed a clear breach of the contract. 28. It can be elucidated from the evidence adduced in Court that Mr Gour knew the plaintiff prior to January 2019 contrary to what he has stated under oath, since he agreed that he obtained the PSV licence dated 18 th December 2018 with the help of the plaintiff. This is also buttressed by the doubtful replies that he gave when confronted with questions pertaining to previous payments that he had allegedly received from the plaintiff prior to January 2019. 29. On the issue of the number of trips, it is clear that the defendant was only paid for two trips. The plaintiff produced [Doc G], an acknowledgment receipt, showing the amount paid to the defendant. This version buttresses the version of the defendant who also stated that he only did 2 trips per day. Both the plaintiff and the defendant blamed each other for the reduction in the number of trips. However, the defendant who claims that he had to stop because of the reduction in the number of trips, has never taken any legal steps against the plaintiff to ensure compliance of the contract between them. Therefore, I conclude that the defendant has failed to convince the court that he had stopped provision of the services because of the reduction of the trips. In fact, according to the termination letter [Doc E], signed by the defendant himself, he clearly stated that he was stopping because he was travelling abroad. 30. Although the defendant has stated under oath that he was lured into signing Doc E, no evidence was adduced in order to prove same. It is also true that the defendant did not take any steps against the plaintiff for the alleged duress imposed upon him to sign the document. Therefore, in the absence of any plausible explanation the court has no alternative than to rely on Doc E. 31. This court also finds that according to [Doc G] the defendant has also been paid the total sum of Rs 54,000, representing payment for services offered for the month of April and May, that is Rs 27,000 for each month. That sum included the Rs 50 per trip which represents an additional amount for the petrol allowance which amounts to the sum of Rs 450 per trip instead of Rs 400. There is no substantial evidence as alleged

by the defendant that the said sum was in fact not paid to him as the plaintiff retained that sum for having assisted the defendant to obtain a PSV licence. 32. For the above reasons, I therefore find that the plaintiff has proved on a balance of probabilities that the defendant has breached the contract [Doc D] for failing to give the three months’ notice as required under the said contract before stopping the provision of services for the transportation of the employees [Doc F]. 33. I also find proved that the plaintiff has had to retain the services of another contractor to continue with the transportation of the employees. It is also clear from the said contract that the monthly fee was increased to Rs 72,000 (Rs 600 x 4 x 30) [Seventy Two Thousand Rupees] as opposed to Rs 54,000 (Rs 450 x 4 x 30) [Fifty Four Thousand Rupees]. Therefore, under the second contract, the plaintiff had to pay an extra Rs 200 per trip. As per the evidence above, both parties by their conduct have agreed that the defendant would provide only two trips per day instead of four trips. This is obvious from the fact that the plaintiff has all along agreed to pay and did pay the defendant for two trips per day due to his unavailability. 34. Therefore, in view of the above, the loss sustained by the plaintiff can only be calculated on two trips per day, amounting to [Rs 200 per trip x 2 trips per day x 30 days per month x 29 months = Rs 348,000. 35. I shall not make any order for moral damage as the plaintiff has successfully been able to obtain another contractor to complete the rest of the contract on the very next day. 36. I therefore order the defendant to pay to the plaintiff the amount of Rs 348,000 in damages. With Costs.

A.Purryag-Ramful Vice- President, Intermediate Court (Civil Division) 27 th April 2026

8