2023 (5) TMI 89 - HC - Indian Laws

Suit for recovery of dues - Jurisdiction of the court to entertain the suit - equipments supplied by defendant to the plaintiff satisfy the specifications mentioned in the purchase order or not - Number 160 found in the basic equipment Fine Lift FH 160 refers to weight lifting capacity of the equipment or it refers to the total weight of the gripper - plaintiff has acknowledged supply of equipments as per the specifications or not - rejection of equipments which were supplied by defendant to the plaintiff as per the purchase order. Whether the equipments supplied by defendant to the plaintiff satisfy the specifications mentioned in the purchase order? - Whether the Number 160 found in the basic equipment Fine Lift FH 160 refers to weight lifting capacity of the equipment or it refers to the total weight of the gripper as well the job carrying capacity of the basic equipment? - HELD THAT - From the communications exchanged between the parties, this Court is surprised to find that the defendant, who had promised to demonstrate the functioning of equipments with a carrying capacity of 130 kg, did not come forward to fulfill their promise. The defendant, at one stage, felt disappointed and insisted only payment. It is now established that the defendant, who has undertaken to successfully install the machines before the release of final payment, started demanding payment, which is not required as per the revised terms as mentioned in the invoice - this Court has no hesitation to hold that the defendant has not fulfilled its obligation under the contract and that they purposely delayed installation to the satisfaction of the plaintiff, as undertaken by them during middle of the installation. Though the defendant made an attempt to convince the plaintiff to improve the performance as per specifications, they did not accomplish and hence this Court is unable to accept the case of defendant. This Court has no reason to disbelieve the evidence of P.W.2 as regards the actual weight of gripper especially when the plaintiff's application for appointment of Advocate Commissioner was dismissed on the objection of defendant and the evidence of P.W.2 was not controverted. This Court finds no truth in the case of defendant. The issues are answered in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. This Court holds that the defendant failed to supply equipments to the plaintiff, satisfying the specifications mentioned in the purchase order. This Court also holds that the understanding of the plaintiff and defendant at the time of placing purchase order is that the weight carrying capacity of the equipment at all angles should be upto 160 kg and the actual weight of gripper has no relevance while denoting the equipment as FH 160. In other words, the Number 160 found in the basic equipment Fine Lift FH 160 would only refer to job lifting capacity of the equipment, irrespective of the weight of the gripper. Whether the plaintiff has acknowledged supply of equipments as per the specifications and in accordance with the purchase order and failed to pay balance amount as per the contract? - Whether the plaintiff is justified in rejecting the equipments which were supplied by defendant to the plaintiff as per the purchase order under Ex.B1 dated 09.02.2007 and filing the suit for recovery of money? - HELD THAT - In the present case, though the defendant was bound to discharge the burden lies on them, they failed to produce even the Brochure to establish their story about the Number 160 found in the purchase order. This Court has already seen that the case of defendant is not consistent and the evidence of D.W.1 is liable to be rejected. Though the trial Court has not considered the report given by P.W.2 and the evidence of P.W.2, this Court has no reasons to disbelieve them atleast as to the actual weight of gripper, as the appellant/defendant has not cross-examined the witness on this aspect. Though this Court has repeatedly held in several cases that the purchaser is bound to pay the contract price when he accepts the goods, in the present case, the plaintiff is entitled to reject the goods when the goods did not satisfy the specifications as per the terms of contract. The plaintiff has parted with substantial money to the defendant towards supply of equipments. When the plaintiff's right to reject the goods is upheld, the consequence that would follow is that the plaintiff is also entitled to interest. Since interest claimed is only 12% p.a., and the transaction being commercial, this Court is justified in granting 12% p.a. interest for the period from 02.10.2008 to 28.02.2010 and 6% p.a. thereafter till date of realisation - issues are answered in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and against the appellant/defendant. The decree of the trial Court is confirmed. In addition, there shall be a decree granting interest at the rate of 12% p.a. for the period from 02.10.2008 to 28.02.2010 and at the rate of 6% p.a. thereafter till the date of realisation. Upon making payment of the amount as per the decree, it is open to the defendant to take delivery of all the equipments supplied by them to plaintiff. Appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the equipment supplied by the defendant to the plaintiff satisfies the specifications mentioned in the purchase order.
2. Whether the Number 160 found in the basic equipment Fine Lift FH 160 refers to weight lifting capacity of the equipment or it refers to the total weight of the gripper as well as the job carrying capacity of the basic equipment.
3. Whether the plaintiff has acknowledged the supply of equipment as per the specifications and failed to pay the balance amount as per the contract.
4. Whether the plaintiff is justified in rejecting the equipment supplied by the defendant and filing the suit for recovery of money.
5. To what relief is the plaintiff entitled?

Detailed Analysis:

Issue Nos. (i) and (ii):
The plaintiff placed an order with the defendant for equipment capable of lifting 160 kg. The defendant claimed that the equipment's capacity included the weight of the gripper (60 kg), leaving a job weight capacity of 100 kg. The court reviewed the purchase order and communications between the parties, concluding that the equipment did not meet the specified requirements. The court found that the Number 160 in the equipment description referred to the job lifting capacity alone, not inclusive of the gripper weight. The court also noted that the defendant failed to demonstrate that the gripper weighed 60 kg and did not provide sufficient evidence to support their claims. Thus, the court held that the defendant failed to supply equipment meeting the specifications of the purchase order.

Issue Nos. (iii) to (v):
The court examined the plaintiff's right to reject the goods under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. The plaintiff rejected the equipment after finding it did not conform to the contract specifications. The court found that the plaintiff had not accepted the goods and had consistently communicated their dissatisfaction. The defendant's argument that the plaintiff had an opportunity to inspect the goods at the factory was dismissed, as the contract required installation at the plaintiff's site. The court upheld the plaintiff's right to reject the goods and recover the amount paid. The plaintiff was also entitled to interest at 12% p.a. from 02.10.2008 to 28.02.2010 and 6% p.a. thereafter until realization.

Conclusion:
The court confirmed the trial court's judgment and decree, allowing the plaintiff to recover the amount paid with interest. The appeal by the defendant was dismissed, and the cross-objection by the plaintiff was allowed, granting interest as specified. The defendant was permitted to take back the equipment upon payment. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.