Allowed

Mirc Electronics Ltd. v. Punsumi India Ltd.

Bombay HC22 Jul 2013S/3429/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an undefended suit, the Bombay High Court decreed the plaintiff's claim for repair costs incurred due to defective capacitors supplied by the defendant, along with 18% interest, accepting the plaintiff's evidence and submitted figures as the defendant did not contest the proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The suit was decreed granting the sum of Rs.2,07,23,940.37/- along with interest at the rate of 18%.

Mirc Electronics Ltd. Vs Punsumi India Ltd. — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Bombay HC (2013)

S3429-2000.doc

Sequeira

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶5

SUIT NO. 3429 OF 2000

¶6

MIRC Electronics Limited. .. Plaintiff Vs.

¶7

Punsumi India Limited. .. Defendant

¶8

Mr.Chirag Mody a/w Mr.Rishikesh Soni i/b DSK Legal, for plaintiff. Mr.Vinod Rai, plaintiff's witness present.

¶9

CORAM: N.M.JAMDAR, J. Monday 22 July 2013

¶10

P.C.:

¶11

By this suit the plaintiff seeks a decree of the sum of Rs.2,07,23,940.37 /- with further interest on Rs.1,45,27,056.34 /-.

¶12

The suit was transferred to the list of undefended suits by the order passed by the Prothonotary and Senior Master of this Court on 1 November 2007. The defendant was represented by an advocate. By order dated 2 July 2012 the statement of the learned counsel for the defendant that he will be seeking discharge in the matter was recorded. Thereafter the suit appeared on Board on 11 January 2013, 8 February 2013 and 1 July 2013, and 15 July 2013, none appeared on behalf of the defendant. No Written statement is filed. The learned counsel for the plaintiff has tendered affidavit of evidence of Mr.Vinod Rai working for the plaintif, who is also present in the Court. The learned counsel has tendered compilation of documents.

¶13

¶14

S3429-2000.doc

¶15

The perusal of the plaint and the affidavit of evidence reveals the case of the plaintiff as under-

¶16

The plaintiff is in business of manufacturing of television sets. From or about January 1997, the plaintiff started receiving complaints from its customers regarding improper working of the television sets. Upon receipt of the complaints the plaintiff sent technicians to the customer's premises for rectifying the defect. The complaints were attended to by the plaintiff staff itself or through authorised service agent Adonis India Limited, whose services were engaged specifically for this purpose. When the sets were repaired the technicians found that cause of malfunction was defective capacitors supplied by the defendants. In cases where the plaintiff carried out the repairs by itself the costs was Rs.100/per black and white television and Rs.200/- for colour television. Whenever the repairs were carried on to Adonis India Limited, the charges were Rs.300/-.

¶17

Between the year 1996 and 1997 around 56,174 colour television sets and 24,124 black and white television sets had to be repaired. Around 25,638 colour television sets were repaired by Adonis India Ltd. According to the plaintiff, Rs.1,62,11,000.00 /- was the amount of loss for attending to the complaints and for replacing the capacitors. The breakup of the amount is Rs.61,07,2000.00 /- for 30,536 colour television sets and Rs.24,12,400.00/- for 24,124 black and white television sets and Rs.76,91,400/- for 25,638 repairs carried out by Adonis India Ltd. It is stated by the plaintiff that this amount was paid to Adonis India Ltd.by way of running account maintained by the plaintiff.

¶18

¶19

S3429-2000.doc

¶20

A meeting took place on 30 April 1997 between the plaintiff and defendant wherein it was informed to the defendant that the plaintiff has decided to stop the use of capacitors supplied by the defendant. The defendant agreed to replace 100% of the rejections free of costs. The plaintiff claimed amount towards repair costs. Thereafter the plaintiff raised three debit notes bearing No.596 dated 5 September 1997 for Rs.96,38,100/-; No.952 dated 23 October 1997 for Rs.22,65,100/- and No.1648 dated 10 February 1998 for Rs.24,70,700/-. It was stated that this receipt of the debit notes were not disputed by the defendant that the plaintiff again sent the debit notes and general voucher to the defendant on 19 September 1998. The defendant claimed an amount of Rs.17,26,243/- due and payable by group company of plaintiff called Monica Electronics Ltd. Furthermore an amount of Rs.11,15,512/- was also claimed by the defendant. According to the plaintiff considering the Inspection Report and the on-line rejection report, at the highest the plaintiff would be required to give credit to the defendant of the sum of Rs.16,83,943/-. In the suit the plaintiff has claimed an amount after deducting this amount of Rs.16,83,943/-. The plaintiff also prayed for interest at the rate of 18 % amounting to Rs.61,96,884/- and has accordingly, claimed a decree of Rs.2,07,23,940/-.

¶21

The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that inspite of their search the original documents such as the debit notes and receipts acknowledged could not be placed on record. The learned counsel states that relevant averments to that effect are made in the affidavit of evidence. Learned counsel submitted that inspite of their best efforts documents could not be found. Considering the averments, permission is granted to the plaintiff to place on record these documents by way of

S3429-2000.doc

secondary evidence.

The learned counsel for the plaintiff submitted that the correspondence annexed to the plaint clearly shows that the defendant had agreed that the capacitors supplied by them were faulty. The learned counsel submitted that due to the faulty capacitors the plaintiff had to incur substantial expenses for repairs of the television sets which were carried out by the plaintiff and through authorised service agent. The learned counsel submitted that for the black and white television sets the plaintiff had to incur costs of Rs.100/- and Rs.200/- for colour television and Rs.300/- for the television sets repaired through service agent. The learned counsel submitted that 56,174 colour television sets and 24,124 black and white television sets came to be repaired. The learned counsel submitted that the amount claimed in the suit is towards repairs of these television sets.

¶26

The minutes of the meeting as well as subsequent letters issued by the defendant shows that the capacitors supplied by the defendant were faulty. Once that position is established the claim of the plaintiff that television sets had to be repaired is substantiated. The amount given in the plaint i.e. Rs.200/- ; Rs.100/- and Rs.300/- as costs for repairs appear to be plausible. In any case, the defendant has not chosen to appear in the suit and contest the averments made. Even otherwise, the fact that repairs carried out and the cost mentioned by the plaintiff appear to be arising out of the usual course of business. Even though the defendant had agreed to replace the capacitors subsequently because of the faulty capacitors the plaintiff had to carry out repairs and incur costs cannot be lost sight of. Inspite of service defendant has not chosen to contest this claim. In the

¶27

¶28

S3429-2000.doc

¶29

circumstances claim made by the plaintiff that the plaintiff has incurred the above mentioned amount towards cost of the repairs will have to be accepted. The interest at the rate of 18% which has been charged is the commercial rate of interest. Considering the facts of the case there is no hesitation to grant the interest at the rate of 18 % as sought for.

¶30

Accordingly, the suit is decreed in terms of prayer clause (a). Refund of Court fees, if any, as per rules. After the true copies of the documents are placed on record to the satisfaction of the office, the original documents to be returned to the plaintiff.

¶31

N.M.JAMDAR, J.

Mirc Electronics Ltd. v. Punsumi India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mirc Electronics Ltd. v. Punsumi India Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

R. L. Chemical Industries Private Limited. Vs M/S. Kopran Limited --- Cin-- L24230MH1958PLC011078

Perfect Finance and Exports Private Limited Vs

Honey Machines Private Limited. Vs ------------------------------------

Concept Marketing and Advertising Ltd. Vs United India Insurance Co. .Ltd.

Khushnaaz Ardeshir Mistry - Plaintiff No. 1 Vs Ardeshir Khurshed Mistry- Plaintiff No 2

M/S.Shrirang Films Vs the Official Liquidator of M/S. One More Thought Entertainment Pvt. Ltd.