Delhi District Court
M/S Rajan Extrusion Technique vs M/S Bestech Polymers Through Prop on 17 December, 2022
In the Court of Shri Dinesh Bhatt, District Judge (Commercial
Court)01, Tis Hazari Courts, West District, Delhi
CS (Comm.) No.79/2022
CNR No. DLWT010008982022
M/S RAJAN EXTRUSION TECHNIQUE
THROUGH PROP.RAMA SHANKER
THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR
MR. RAMA SHANKER R/O G/F B/P, F95,
MAYAPURI, PHASEII, NEW DELHI 110064
........Plaintiff
Versus
M/S BESTECH POLYMERS THROUGH PROP.
AT H1/1384, PHASE5, RAMPUR, MUNDANA,
RIICO INDUSTRIAL AREA BHIWADI,
RAJASTHAN 301019
........Defendant
Date of Institution : 31012022
Date of hearing of arguments : 17122022
Date of decision : 17122022
EXPARTE J U D G M E N T
1.This is suit for recovery of Rs.10,72,585/ alognwith interest, compensation and damages from the defendant on account of unpaid amount of goods delivered to him.
2. Plaintiff's case is that plaintiff is a proprietorship concern and has been dealing in business of manufacturing and supply of Mono CS (COMM.) No.79/22 M/s Rajan Extrusion Technique Vs. M/s Bestech Polymers Page No.1 of 5 Layer LD/LLD Film Plant and other types of machines. Defendant has placed the purchase order in the month of July, 2020 for manufacturing of 40 MM LD/HM film plant to manufacture film upto 600 mm (24'') lay flat tubing width and minimum 20 micron consisting of single screw of 40 mm. Plaintiff as per purchase order placed by the defendant regarding machine with Fix Die delivered the same to the defendant and raised invoice for total sum of Rs.4,72,000/ including GST 18%. Plaintiff was maintaining a running account and after adjusting the payment made, there was an outstanding amount of Rs.5,20,580/. Despite repeated requests and reminders defendant did not clear the payment. Plaintiff stated that defendant has agreed to pay damages @ 1000 per day in case of delayed delivery. Plaintiff has claimed the suit amount alongwith interest including compensation on account of mental agony and harassment and damages to the tune of Rs.1000/ per day w.e.f. 01.10.2020. Plaintiff approached the prelitigation mediation which was a nonstarter.
3. Defendant despite service did not appear and was proceeded ex parte on 23.11.2022.
4. Plaintiff has examined PW1 as the sole witness on its behalf and thereafter closed his exparte evidence. PW1 has reiterated the CS (COMM.) No.79/22 M/s Rajan Extrusion Technique Vs. M/s Bestech Polymers Page No.2 of 5 contents of the plaint and relied on documents Ex. PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/11.
5. I have heard the Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff and perused the record.
6. PW1 stated that defendant had placed order for purchase of machines for manufacturing of 40 MM LD/ H.M. film plant to manufacture film upto 600 mm (24'') lay flat tubing width and minimum 20 micron consisting of single screw of 40 mm and according to the purchase order of the defendant, plaintiff supplied machine. Defendant made payment from time to time but did not make the payment of one invoice Ex.PW1/5. Registration certificate of plaintiff is Ex.PW1/2, copy of the purchase issued by the defendant is Ex.PW1/3, copy of quotation dated 17.07.2020 is Ex.PW1/4, copy of legal demand notice is Ex.PW1/6, the original postal receipt is Ex.PW1/7, the tracking report is Ex.PW1/8, copy of email dated 30.07.2021 is Ex.PW 1/9, copy of nonstarter report is Ex.PW1/10, copy of plaintiff Adhar Card is Ex.PW1/11, ledger account is Ex.PW12 and certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW 1/13.
7. Plaintiff's version is unrebutted and corroborated with documents to the extent that plaintiff had supplied machines to the defendant CS (COMM.) No.79/22 M/s Rajan Extrusion Technique Vs. M/s Bestech Polymers Page No.3 of 5 vide invoice Ex.PW1/5. As per ledger account Ex.PW1/12, there was a running account between the parties and as on 31.05.2021, there was an outstanding amount of Rs.5,20,580/ against the defendant. Plaintiff has also claimed damages @ 1000/ per day which is stated to be agreed by the defendant as per the terms of quotation Ex.PW1/4. However, parties were maintaining a running account and there are various payments made by the defendant after the delivery of the machine. Plaintiff is shown to have made further supply of goods on 16.02.2021 and the outstanding balance as on 01.04.2021 was only Rs.39,920/. There was further sale on 31.05.2021 of Rs.5,60,500/ and therefore, after adjustment the outstanding amount is shown to be Rs.5,20,580/. Plaintiff's case is based on invoice of Rs.4,72,000/ only but claimed the outstanding amount as per Ex.PW1/4. Thus, it is clear that the entire outstanding payment is not entirely on account of unpaid amount of machine in question. The transaction was a business transaction between the parties and default of payment is normal business dispute, which cannot be considered as something entitling parties for special damages. Accordingly, the claimed damages/ compensation are neither substantiated nor proved and cannot be allowed. In any case, in such default plaintiff can always be granted interest on the CS (COMM.) No.79/22 M/s Rajan Extrusion Technique Vs. M/s Bestech Polymers Page No.4 of 5 delayed payment. Plaintiff has claimed interest @ 24% PA on the delayed payment, as per one of the condition mentioned in invoices. However, this rate of interest appears to be in the form of penalty and also on the higher side. Accordingly, keeping in view the prevailing commercial lending rate of interest of nationalized banks and the facts and circumstances of the case interest @ 10% P.A. would be reasonable and is allowed on the outstanding amount.
8. Accordingly, the suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for a total sum of Rs.5,20,580/ alongwith interest @ 10% P.A. from the date of the filing of the suit till realization alongwith costs.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open (Dinesh Bhatt)
Court on 17.12.2022 District Judge (Commercial Court)01
West, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
CS (COMM.) No.79/22 M/s Rajan Extrusion Technique Vs. M/s Bestech Polymers Page No.5 of 5