Delhi District Court
Pankaj Sharma vs Vijay Sales Pvt. Ltd on 19 February, 2026
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEV SAROHA,CIVIL JUDGE-04 (WEST)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No. DLWT03-000728-2022
CS SCJ No. 437/2022
In the matter of:
SH. PANKAJ SHARMA,
S/O SH. K.L. SHARMA,
R/O HOUSE NO. C-14, RAKSHA KUNJ,
PASCHIM VIHAR WEST,
DELHI-110063.
..............Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. VIJAY SALES PVT. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR,
SH. NANU NAROTARAM GUPTA,
B-1/17, PLOT NO. 7, BLOCK NO. B-1,
547, NEAR ANAR LEELA HOSPITAL,
NEAR METRO STATION, JANAKPURI (E),
NEW DELHI - 110058.
2. HP INDIA SALES PVT. LTD.,
THROUGH ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR,
SH. KETAN MAGAN LAL PATEL,
OFFICE AT: 24, SALARPURIA ARENA,
HOSUR MAIN ROAD ADUGODI,
POST-BANGLORE, KARNATAKA-560030.
......Defendants
Suit No. 437/212 Pankaj SharmaVs. Vijay Sales Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 1 of 14
Date of institution : 23.03.2022
Date of Reserving judgment : 06.02.2026
Date of pronouncement : 19.02.2026
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for mandatory injunction and recovery of damages with interest filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.
2. THE CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF 2.1. It is submitted that plaintiff for earning his livelihood had taken the decision to purchase the Laptop from the defendant No.1 who is the authorized sales representative of the defendant No.2.
2.2. It is averred that defendant No.2 is manufacturer of Laptop of good quality, standard and specifications and the people of India have faith and trust in the laptop manufactured by the defendant No.2 under the trade name of HP. It is further submitted that the defendant No.2 being the juristic personality has been impleaded through its Director and the Director is solely responsible for manufacturing and distribu- tion.
2.3. It is further averred that the defendant No.2 has appointed the defendant No.1 as a marketing representative of the defendant No.2. Suit No. 437/212 Pankaj SharmaVs. Vijay Sales Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 2 of 14 The defendant No.1 is selling the HP Laptop of the defendant No.2 under the supervision, direction and control of the defendant No.2.
2.4. It is further submitted that the defendant no.1 being juristic per- sonality has been impleaded through its Director who is managing and controlling the day to day affairs of the defendant No.1 and responsi- ble for all acts, deeds, omissions and commissions of the defendant No.1.
2.5. It is further submitted that on 14.08.2021, the plaintiff had vis- ited the office of the defendant No.1 i.e. Vijay Sales (India) Pvt. Ltd. Delhi (Janakpuri), for purchasing the Laptop. It is further submitted that the plaintiff had brought in the actual and constructive knowledge of the defendant No.2, that plaintiff requires a Laptop of good quality, standard and specification for earning his livelihood and it was then, the authorized agents, servants and employees of the defendant No.1 had advised plaintiff to purchase the Laptop of HP (India) Sales Pvt. Ltd. Company and the plaintiff on the assurance and promise of the defendants had agreed to purchase the HP Company Laptop. The de- fendant no.1 for and on behalf of the defendant no.2 under the express and implied authority of the defendant no.2 had assured and promised the plaintiff that the laptop of the defendant no.2 shall satisfy all the needs of the plaintiff.
Suit No. 437/212 Pankaj SharmaVs. Vijay Sales Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 3 of 14 2.6. It is averred that the plaintiff had purchased the HP Laptop in the name of Pankaj and Company C/o Pradeep Sharma and paid a sum of Rs.64,000/- (Rupees Sixty Four Thousand Only) through HDFC Bank Credit Card, vide invoice No.DJK-B-SIA3910 invoice dated 14.08.2021, TW.V. No. DJK-B-SOR 7385 to the defendants. Original invoice is attached herewith and copy of statement of HDFC Bank Credit Card dated 07.09.2021 is annexed herewith.
2.7. It is further submitted that since the date of purchase of the said Laptop, the plaintiff is continuously visiting the office of the defen- dant No.2 for removing the defects of the same or for replacement with new one or to refund the amount paid. It is further submitted that HP Laptop despite repair on several occasions is not functioning and operative at all and is suffering from inherent manufacturing defects and unable to satisfy the day to day use of plaintiff for the purpose of which it was purchased.
2.8. It is further submitted that plaintiff through E-mail had brought the grievances in the knowledge of the the defendants, its authorized agent etc., but the defendants have miserably failed the plaintiff. That, the defendants despite of continuous demands of plaintiff is neither re- placing the Laptop or nor refunding the money. Such conduct on the part of defendant is causing continuous harassment, torture, pain, agony, suffering and set back to plaintiff and the plaintiff is unable to use the HP Laptop for which plaintiff had paid a huge amount of Suit No. 437/212 Pankaj SharmaVs. Vijay Sales Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 4 of 14 money. Copy of emails and certificate under section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act are annexed herewith.
2.9. It is further submitted that the plaintiff is continuously request- ing the defendants, its authorized agents etc, to replace the HP Laptop with new one or to refund a sum of Rs.64,000/- (Rupees Sixty Four Thousand Only) to the plaintiff, however, the defendants have failed to do so. It is further submitted that the defendants have played a fraud upon the plaintiff and after taking the full price of HP Laptop has pro- vided to plaintiff a HP Laptop of poor quality. It is further submitted that the defendant no.1 wrongly mentioned the serial number of the product and that the original and correct serial number of the product is 5CD1289FTK. Copy of the snapshot box of the laptop/product where the serial number mentioned is annexed herewith. That, the conduct of defendants is causing continuous financial losses, injury and damages to plaintiff and the defendants have committed the fun- damental breach of terms and conditions of contract of sale.
2.10. It is further averred that the plaintiff was constrained to serve le- gal notice dated 28.12.2021, upon all directors of the defendants No.1 and 2 through speed post and despite their respective replies, neither the laptop has been replaced nor the amount has been refunded.
2.11. It is further submitted that the cause of action arose when the plaintiff had purchased the HP laptop from the defendants i.e. on Suit No. 437/212 Pankaj SharmaVs. Vijay Sales Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 5 of 14 14.08.2021. That, the cause of action further arose, when the plaintiff had served the legal notice dated 28.12.2021 to the defendants. It is further submitted that the cause of action is still in continuing.
2.12. That the whole cause of action has arose within the jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court. That, the plaintiff had purchased the laptop from the defendants at the selling centre of the defendant no. 2 operating at the address the defendant No.1, the contract of sale also came in exis- tence at the working place of the defendant No.1.
2.13. It is further submitted that the value of the suit for the purpose of relief of mandatory injunction has been affixed at Rs.130/- and the court fees comes out to be Rs.13/- value of the suit for the purpose of damages has been fixed at Rs.64,000/- (Rupees Sixty Four Thousand Only) and the court fees comes plaintiff out to be Rs.2979/-.
2.14. That the suit of the plaintiff is within the limitation.
2.15. It is thus submitted, that the a decree of mandatory injunction be passed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants, their agents etc, to replace the HP Laptop as per invoice vide Serial No. DRH014 HPR 58GB, 512GB, 4BG, 15E, C1106AX, HSN CODE 84713010 or to pass a decree of damages/compunsation against the defendants jointly and severally to refund a sum of Rs. 64,000/- along-
Suit No. 437/212 Pankaj SharmaVs. Vijay Sales Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 6 of 14 with interest @ 18% per annum from 14.08.2021 till actual realisation of the payment to the plaintiff.
3. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANT NO.1 3.1. It is submitted that the plaintiff has no cause action to file the present suit against the answering defendant no.1 as the defendant no.l is a dealer only and he has no liability. It is submitted that in case of any defect, it is the manufacturing company which is liable to remove the defect and accordingly he had sent the complaint received from the plaintiff to the service centre of defendant no.2.
3.2. It is further averred that the plaintiff has not come to this Hon'ble court with clean hands and has suppressed the true and material facts such the suit as is liable to be dismissed with costs. The defendant no.1 has denied the case of the plaintiff against him.
4. WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE DEFENDANT NO.2 4.1. No WS was filed on behalf of defendant no. 2 in this case.
5. REPLICATION 5.1. Replication to the written statement of defendant no.1 was filed on behalf of the plaintiff and in the replication, the plaintiff reiterated Suit No. 437/212 Pankaj SharmaVs. Vijay Sales Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 7 of 14 his averments made in the plaint and denied the defence of defendant no.1.
6. ADMISSION/DENIAL OF DOCUMENTS 6.1. No affidavit of admission/denial of documents was filed on behalf of either of the parties.
7. FRAMING OF ISSUES 7.1. On 01.11.2023, on pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:-
(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP (2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of damages/compensation, as prayed for? OPP (3) Relief?
7.2. Thereafter, the matter was fixed for PE.
8. PLAINTIFF'S EVIDENCE 8.1. In support of his claim, the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1 who tendered his affidavit Ex.PW-1/A and relied upon following documents:-
Sr. Documents Exhibit/Mark
NO.
Suit No. 437/212 Pankaj SharmaVs. Vijay Sales Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 8 of 14
1 Copy of his aadhar card Ex.PW1/1(OSR)
2 Original invoice dt. 14.08.2021 Ex.PW1/2
3 Copy of statement of HDFC Bank CreditEx.PW1/3
Card dt. 07.09.2021
4 Copy of e-mails and certification U/s 65-Ex.PW1/4(Colly, page
B of Indian Evidence Act no. 30 to 51)
5 Copy of snap shot of laptop box Ex.PW1/5
6 Copy of legal notice dt. 28.12.2021 Ex.PW1/6
7 Original postal receipts Ex.PW1/7(Colly)
8 Tracking reports Ex.PW1/8(Colly, page
no. 60 to 63)
9 Reply of notice dt. 10.01.2022,Ex.PW1/9(Colly, age
13.01.2022 & 21.01.2022 no. 66 to 74)
10 Copies of rejoinder dt. 24.01.2022 Ex.PW1/10(Colly)
8.2. PW-1 was cross examined by Sh. Rahul Negi, Ld Counsel for defendant no.1 at length. In his cross-examination, the plaintiff deposed that he purchased the laptop for business purpose and that the said laptop was not working properly and was automatically getting shut down. He further deposed that this problem surfaced within 15-20 days of the date of the purchase. He further deposed that firstly, he contacted the defendant no.1 and requested them to replace the laptop or to repair the same. He further deposed that he also contacted/called the HP customer care and the HP/defendant no. 2 registered his complaint and official of defendant no.2 visited his house for repairing the laptop. He further deposed that defendant no. 2 stated that laptop hardware part is not working and they want to be replaced the said Suit No. 437/212 Pankaj SharmaVs. Vijay Sales Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 9 of 14 part within 10 days. He further deposed that even the HP official person who visited his house for repairing the laptop stated that said laptop is not repairable one. He further deposed that even when defendant no.2 did not repair the said laptop, they clearly refused to replace the same.
This witness was not cross-examined by defendant no.2 despite opportunity given.
8.3. No other PW was examined. Thereafter, vide separate statement of Plaintiff Sh. Pankaj Sharma, the plaintiff's evidence was closed on 30.04.2024.
9. DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE 9.1. No defence evidence was lead on behalf of the defendants despite repeated opportunities and the defendant evidence was closed by Court order dt. 17.05.2025.
10. DECISION AND THE REASONS FOR DECISION 10.1. I have heard counsel for the plaintiff and carefully gone through the material available on record.
10.2. My issue wise findings are as follows:
Suit No. 437/212 Pankaj SharmaVs. Vijay Sales Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 10 of 14 10.3. Findings on issue no. 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of mandatory injunction, as prayed for? OPP 10.4. Findings on issue no. 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of damages/compensation, as prayed for? OPP 10.5. Both the issues are being deciding together. The onus to prove the above said issues was upon the plaintiff. It is the case of the plaintiff that he had bought an HP Laptop from defendant no.1, which HP has manufactured by defendant no. 2. It is submitted the laptop was defective and despite repeated attempts of repair, the defendant no.2 could not repair the same. It is further submitted that the defendants neither replaced the defective laptop nor returned the purchase amount to him. The plaintiff has claimed the replacement of the laptop and a decree of damages/compensation to refund the sum of Rs. 64,000/- alongwith interest @18% per annum.
10.6. In order to prove his case, the plaintiff has primarily relied upon Ex. PW1/2 which is original invoice dated 14.08.2021, Ex. PW1/3 which is copy of statement of HDFC bank credit card dated 07.09.2021, copy of E-mails and certification u/s 65 B of Indian Evidence Act which are Ex. PW1/4 (colly), Ex. PW1/6 which is copy of legal notice dated 28.12.2021, reply of notice dated 10.01.2022, 13.01.2022 and 21.01.2022 which is Ex. PW1/9 and Ex. PW1/10 (colly) which are copies of rejoinder dated 24.01.2022.
Suit No. 437/212 Pankaj SharmaVs. Vijay Sales Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 11 of 14 10.7. Per contra, on behalf of the defendant no.1, it is submitted that defendant no.1 is the authorised sales representative of defendant no.2 and that he is not liable for any defects in the goods bought. It is submitted that as defendant no.2 is the manufacturer, he is only liable for the relief sought by the plaintiff.
10.8. No WS was filed on behalf of defendant no.2 and no evidence was lead on behalf of either of the defendants. The right of the defendants to address final arguments was closed vide order dated 16.09.2025. Though, the right of defendant no.1 to address final arguments and to file written arguments was allowed later on vide order dated 06.01.2026 subject to cost of Rs. 4,000/- to be paid to the plaintiff, however, as the defendant no.1 did not pay the cost imposed vide order dated 06.01.2026, his opportunity to address final arguments was closed vide order dated 06.02.2026. His written arguments were also taken off the record.
10.9. In this case, the defendant no.1 has denied his liability on the ground that he is the authorised sales representative of defendant no.2 and he cannot be made liable for any defects in the product sold. No evidence has been lead on behalf of the defendant in support of the same. This court, does not agree with this contention of defendant no.1 as when a customer buys a product from Vijay Sales, defendant no.1, he places his trust in the brand name of defendant no.1. After the Suit No. 437/212 Pankaj SharmaVs. Vijay Sales Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 12 of 14 sale of a defective product, the defendant no. 1 cannot be allowed to wash his hands and leave the customer at the mercy of the manufacturer of the product. Though, Ex. PW1/2 which is invoice dated 14.08.2021, on its backside states that guarantee/warrantee is given by the manufacturing company only and the services will be rendered by the manufacturer and not by dealer, however, it is a unilateral contract and these fine prints written on the backside of the invoice cannot absolve the defendant no.1 from his liability to the customer.
10.10.As regards the liability of defendant no.2, this court is of opinion that defendant no. 2 is also liable to the plaintiff. No WS was filed on behalf of defendant no.2, however, the perusal of Ex. PW1/4 (colly) and reply dated 21.01.2022, it is clear that numerous times attempts were made by the plaintiff to get the defective HP laptop repaired. The defendant no.2 cannot deny his liability on the ground that as per the company policy, only repairs of any defective products are allowed. In the opinion of this court, if the product is defective, the plaintiff cannot be asked to get the defective laptop repaired continuously from defendant no. 2, if the problem persists. In this case, it appears that reasonable attempts to repair the defective laptop were made by the plaintiff, however, when he found out that the same is not repairable, he demanded the replacement of the same.
Suit No. 437/212 Pankaj SharmaVs. Vijay Sales Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 13 of 14 10.11. In these circumstances and in view of above discussion, this court has come to the considered opinion that the plaintiff has proved his case on the scale of balance of probabilities. During the course of arguments, it was submitted by the counsel for the plaintiff that his relief may be considered in alternative i.e. either the defective laptop be replaced or he be paid damages to the tune of Rs. 64,000/- alongwith interest. In the opinion of this court, rather than the replacement of the defective laptop, the plaintiff must be given the relief of damages. Thus, the plaintiff is held entitled to a decree for recovery of damages of Rs. 64,000/- . The plaintiff has also claimed interest @ 18% per annum. In the opinion of this court, the same is exorbitant and interest @ 6% per annum is hereby granted to the plaintiff on the sum of Rs. 64,000/- from 14.08.2021 i.e. the date of purchase of the defective laptop till the realization of the amount. The plaintiff is also held entitled to the cost of the suit. Both the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the decretal amount. Thus, both the issues are decided accordingly.
11. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
12. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by DEV SAROHA DEV Announced in the open Date:
SAROHA 2026.02.20 11:57:55 Court on 19.02.2026 +0530 (Dev Saroha) Civil Judge-04 (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi Suit No. 437/212 Pankaj SharmaVs. Vijay Sales Pvt. Ltd. Page No. 14 of 14