Delhi District Court
M/S Karishma Computers (P) Ltd vs M/S Raj Infomatique (Partnership Firm) on 31 January, 2020
IN THE COURT OF CIVIL JUDGE-01, SOUTH EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS COMPLEX, SAKET, NEW DELHI
Presiding Officer: Ms. Anuradha Prasad , DJS
Suit No.1435/18
In the matter of:-
M/s Karishma Computers (P) Ltd
through Its duly authorized
Representative Kamal Kishor Kapoor (Director),
204/93, Ashok Bhawan, Nehru Place,
New Delhi-110019 ........... Plaintiff
Vs.
1.M/s Raj Infomatique (Partnership Firm) Defendant no.1
2. Sunil Singh Defendant no.2.
3. Pradeep Singh Defendant no.3.
All At:-
1.A-23, Col. Bhatia Road, Vikas Nagar, Uttam Nagar, Delhi-110059
2. G-4, Raja House 30-31, Nehru Place, New Delhi-110019
3. F-6A, Janak Place, First Floor, Jain Tower, Janak Puri, Near Satyam, Cineplex, New Delhi Date of institution of Suit : 04.10.2018 Date on which Judgment was reserved : 10.01.2020 Date of pronouncement of the Judgment : 31.01.2020 CS No.1435/18 M/s Karishma Computers Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Raj Infomatique 1/18
1. The Case 1.1. The plaintiff has instituted the present suit against the defendant seeking the following relief:-
"a. To pass a decree for a sum of Rs.1,80,376/- RUPEES ONE LAC EIGHTY THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY SIX ONLY) being the amount outstanding of invoice mentioned above. b. To pass a decree of Rs.53,824/- (RUPEES FIFTY THREE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED TWENTY FOUR ONLY) interest @ 18% p.a from the date of invoice till september 2018 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. c. To pass a decree for future interest at the rate of 18 per cent per annum be granted to the plaintiff on the above sum of Rs.1,80,376/- (RUPEES ONE LAC EIGHTY THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED SEVENTY SIX ONLY) from the date of the suit till realization of the decrial amount.
d. To award a cost of the suit to the deponent throughout" [Sic] 1.2. Plaintiff being a legal entity duly registered under the Indian Companies Act has filed the present suit through its Authorized Representative Sh. Kamal Kishor Kapoor. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of information technology peripherals distribution.
2. Plaintiff's case 2.1. Pleaded case of the plaintiff is that the goods were delivered to defendants and the same was duly received and acknowledged by the defendants. The plaintiff has been maintaining the accounts of defendant in the name of M/s. Raj Infomatique in its books of accounts duly maintained in the ordinary course of CS No.1435/18 M/s Karishma Computers Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Raj Infomatique 2/18 business. The defendants used to make part payment and therefore there is always an outstanding debit balance in plaintiff's account. Since July 2018 the ledger account as maintained by the plaintiff is showing the net debit balance of Rs.1,80,376/-.It is alleged by the plaintiff that an outstanding amount of Rs.1,80,376 is due against the defendants. The defendant till date has not made the payment of the outstanding dues to the plaintiff. Despite repeated requests and reminders the defendant did not clear the outstanding amount to the plaintiff against the invoices alongwith the interest at the rate of 18% per annum. Thereafter plaintiff served a legal notice dated 05.09.2018 upon the defendant calling upon the defendant to pay the outstanding amount, but of no avail, hence the present suit.
3. Upon service of summons of the suit, the defendants contested the present suit of the plaintiff and filed the written statement and the same was taken on record.
4. Defendant's Case
4.1. Defence emerging from the written statement is that the transaction under consideration for which the plaintiff is claiming the suit amount pertains to sale of 24 laptops of Acer India Pvt. Ltd brand to defendant no.1. At the time of selling the laptops, plaintiff misrepresented that they were authorized distributors of Acer India Pvt Ltd and were authorized to sell the laptops. The plaintiff wrongly and dishonestly induced defendant no.1 and thereby cheated defendant no.1 by supplying Acer laptops whose warranty period had expired/ were going to expire within 1 to 2 months from the date of purchase, instead of one year warranty that normally comes alongwith the acer products. The plaintiff company concealed the fact that it was not a distributor of Acer CS No.1435/18 M/s Karishma Computers Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Raj Infomatique 3/18 India when the laptops were sold to the defendant no.1 and the plaintiff had sold old stocks.
4.2. Believing the representation of the plaintiff company, defendant no.1 agreed to purchase 24 laptops from the plaintiff. The purchases were made by defendant no.1 during the period 30.01.2018 to 10.02.2018. The said laptops were sold by the defendant no.1 to various customers during the above mentioned period. Out of these 24 laptops, defects with regard to the functioning of the laptops were brought to the notice of defendant no.1 by the customers of defendant no.1 with respect to 20 laptops, within a period of 1 to 2 months from the date when the laptops were sold by defendant no.1. The customers of defendant no.1 who had purchased the laptops claiming that the laptops were within the warranty period, requested the defendant no.1 to resolve the issues.
4.3. Defendant no.1 pursuant to receiving complaints in the functioning of the laptops from its customers checked the warranty status of the defective laptops for the purposes of claiming warranty. It was only then that the defendants got to know that the plaintiff had sold laptops for which warranty had expired / to expire within 1 to 2 months period. On further inquiry the defendants got to know that the plaintiff at the time of selling the laptops was not even an authorized distributors/ re-seller of Acer India. The defendants further came to know that the plaintiff had been blacklisted by Acer India and that the stock sold to defendant no.1 was an earlier old stock.
4.4. The laptops of Acer India come with a warranty of one year.
However, the laptops sold to defendant no.1 were old stocks CS No.1435/18 M/s Karishma Computers Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Raj Infomatique 4/18 lying with the plaintiff for a very long time as a result of which the warranty period had expired/ was nearing expirations. The relationship between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 was that of distributor/ seller and purchaser/ customer respectively. The defendant no.1 was therefore the customer of the plaintiff. In the normal course of business it would have been the responsibility of the plaintiff to get the warranty extended from Acer India. Defendant no.1 further requested the plaintiff to provide distributor invoice so that it may approach Acer India for appropriate solution, however the same was never responded to by the plaintiff. The plaintiff dishonestly did not respond to the defendant no.1's request to provide the distributors invoice.
4.5. Ultimately defendant no.2 had to write to Acer India vide email dated 07.09.2018 requesting for a solution as the plaintiff had stopped responding to defendant no.1's request for warranty extension of the defective laptops. Upon speaking with the representatives of Acer India the defendants were informed verbally that the plaintiff had been blacklisted by Acer India and they were not re-seller / distributor partners of Acer India in 2018. The fact that the plaintiff were not re-seller/ distributor partner of Acer India in 2018 and that defendant no.1 was forwarded old stocks of laptops by the plaintiff was also affirmed by Acer India vide emails exchanged on 25.10.2018 with defendant no.2.
4.6. Defendant no.1 purchased 24 laptops for an amount of Rs.6,20,400/- from the plaintiff out of which an amount of Rs.4,40,024/- was duly paid to the plaintiff. The plaintiff asked the defendant to adjust the cost incurred by the defendants in rectifying the defects in the laptops from the amount due to be paid to the plaintiff by defendant no.1. The defendant no.1 does CS No.1435/18 M/s Karishma Computers Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Raj Infomatique 5/18 not owe any amount to the plaintiff. The remaining amount of Rs.1,80,376/-was withheld by defendant no.1 on the instructions/ consent of the plaintiff itself for adjusting an amount of approximately Rs.1,80,000/- (without taxes) towards the cost incurred by defendant no.1 in getting the defective laptops rectified which was otherwise the task of the plaintiff. The defendant no.1 was forced to avail the services of VCL Technocare Pvt Ltd, an authorized service centre of Acer India which would not have been required had the plaintiff not sold the warranty expired laptops or taken steps in getting the warranty extended before selling it to the defendant no.1.
4.7. With these pleaded facts the defendant prayed that the suit of the plaintiff be dismissed.
5. Reply to the written statement 5.1. Replication was filed on behalf of plaintiff to the written statement of the defendant no.1 wherein plaintiff has denied all the averments made by the defendant no.1 in his written statement.
6. Issues 6.1. Upon completion of pleadings, the following issues were identified, vide order dated 29.03.2019 by the Ld. Predecessor Court:-
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the prayed amount under prayer clause (a)?OPP.
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest to the tune as prayed under prayer clause (b) ?OPP.
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any future interest if so at what rate?OPP.
(iv)Whether there arises no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant, since the plaintiff had supplied defective laptops with expired / nearly expired warranty?OPD.
(v) Whether the defendant is entitled to benefit of set off to the tune of Rs.1,80,376/- against the claim?OPD.
CS No.1435/18 M/s Karishma Computers Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Raj Infomatique 6/18
(vi) Relief.
7. Plaintiff's Evidence 7.1. To prove its case, Sh. Kamal kishor Kapoor, Director of plaintiff company was examined as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the following documents: -
(i) Board resolution dated 04.09.2018 Ex.PW1/1
(ii) Seven Invoices Ex.PW1/2 (colly)
(iii) Ledger account Ex.PW1/3 (colly)
(iv) Legal notice dated 05.09.2018 Ex.PW1/4 (v) Postal receipts Ex.PW1/5
(vi) Reply to legal notice dated 06.10.2018 Ex.PW1/6
8. Defendant's Evidence 8.1. To rebut the case of the plaintiff, defendant examined its partner Sh. Sunil Singh as DW-1 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.DW1/A and relied upon the following documents:-
(i) Copy of email chain exchanged between 08.03.2018 to 12.03.2018 Ex.DW1/1
(ii) Copies of warranty validation details of laptops in question Ex.DW1/2
(iii)Email correspondence between defendant company and Acer India with regard to laptops sold to ILFS Ex.DW1/3
(iv) Email dated 07.09.2018 and 25.10.2018 Ex.DW1/4 (colly)
(v) Service call records submitted to defendant company by VCL Technocare Pvt Ltd Ex.DW1/6 (OSR)
(vi) Price list of VCL Technocare Pvt Ltd submitted to defendant company Ex.DW1/7 (OSR)
(vii)Job sheet provided by VCL Technocare Pvt Ltd to the defendant company for service provided Ex.DW1/8
(viii)Response dated 06.10.2018 to Legal notice dated Ex.DW1/9 (same is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/6)
9. Final Arguments.
9.1. Submissions on behalf of plaintiff.
9.1.1. It was argued on behalf of plaintiff that this is a case wherein CS No.1435/18 M/s Karishma Computers Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Raj Infomatique 7/18 goods were supplied to the defendants for which part payment was made and the outstanding dues has still not been paid by the defendants. It was further argued that the defence of the defendant that old laptops with expired warranty was sold is meritless as the warranty stands extended from the actual sale automatically from the date of registration of the product to the portal of the manufacturing company. The version put forth by the defendant is afterthought. Finally, it was prayed that the suit be decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
9.2. Submissions on behalf of defendant.
9.2.1. It was argued on behalf of defendant that there was a misrepresentation by the plaintiff company as the plaintiff company vide its own admission during cross examination has admitted that it was not an authorized distributor of Acer India in the year 2018. The fact that plaintiff company was not a re-seller partner of Acer India for the year 2018 is also confirmed by Acer India itself vide email dated 25.10.2018 Ex.DW1/4 (colly). The plaintiff was not an authorized distributor and intentionally sold old stocks of laptops of which warranty had expired/ nearing expiry. The laptops of Acer India normally come with warranty of one year and in the event the warranty of laptops have expired or about to expire then in the normal course of business it is the distributor who has the responsibility to inform Acer India and get the warranty extended before selling the laptops any further.
9.2.2. Since the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant no.1 company was that of seller/distributor and purchaser, the plaintiff company was obligated to extend the warranty of products sold by it. Registering the product on the portal is not always required and in the event the same is not done and the expired warranty CS No.1435/18 M/s Karishma Computers Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Raj Infomatique 8/18 product is sold, the authorized distributor can get the same extended. It was further argued that because the customers were facing issues in getting warranty through service centre they approached defendant no.1 directly. The defendant no.1 company is rightfully claiming a set off as it has incurred a cost of around Rs.1,79,000/- for repair of defective laptops as per the job sheet submitted by VCL Technocare to defendant no.1. The same may have been kept on hold, but defendant no.1 company will ultimately have to pay VCL Technocare for the services rendered by it as it was a paid service.
10. Heard the arguments advanced by the Ld. Counsel for plaintiff and the defendant. This court has carefully perused the evidence on record in light of the pleadings of the parties and considered the oral submissions of the Ld. counsel for plaintiff as well as written submissions on behalf of behalf of defendant.
11. Appreciation and findings The issues are adjudicated as under:-
11.1. Issue no.(i): -
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of the prayed amount under prayer clause (a) OPP.
11.1.1. The onus to prove this issue is upon plaintiff. By way of prayer clause (a) of the plaint, plaintiff seeks recovery for an amount of Rs.1,80,376/- from the defendant in lieu of the outstanding amount against the alleged invoices.
11.1.2. Essentially the case of the plaintiff is based on the fact that the plaintiff sold goods to the defendant for which ledger account was maintained by the plaintiff in its ordinary course of business.
As per the ledger account, an amount of Rs.1,80,376/-is due and outstanding to the plaintiff against the defendant.
CS No.1435/18 M/s Karishma Computers Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Raj Infomatique 9/18 11.1.3. The defendant herein is not denying the alleged transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant is also not disputing the suit amount rather claiming set off on the premise that the plaintiff misrepresented itself to be an authorized distributor of Acer India Pvt Ltd. It is the claim of the defendant that the plaintiff sold laptops to the defendant which had expired/ about to expire in 2 to 3 months but the same was neither disclosed by the plaintiff nor the warranty period was extended as the plaintiff was never the authorized distributor of Acer India Pvt Ltd. Despite requests the plaintiff did not supply the distributor invoices on the basis of which the warranty could have been extended. Since customers started facing issues with the laptops within the warranty period of one year and therefore the defendant had incurred expenditure to the tune of the suit amount towards repair of those laptops, hence the defendant is entitled to set off the expenses against the suit amount as claimed by the plaintiff.
11.1.4. It is defendant's own case that the laptops of Acer Pvt Ltd India comes with a warranty of one year. However the defendant sold products of which the warranty had already expired or was about the expire. To prove the said claim the defendant has relied upon copies of warranty validation details of laptops in question Ex.DW1/2. Perusal of the same reveals that the said document is a page on the portal of Acer India wherein the description of the laptops alongwith the installation date and warranty expiry date has been mentioned. There can be no dispute that the warranty can be honoured by the manufacturing company itself i.e Acer India Pvt Ltd in the present case. As per plaintiff's own case the CS No.1435/18 M/s Karishma Computers Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Raj Infomatique 10/18 portal of Acer India reflects that the warranty of the laptops which were sold to the defendant had already expired or was about to expire. This clearly means that for Acer India the laptop was already sold to the end customer and the details of sale of the product was already communicated to Acer India Pvt Ltd and that is why the same was updated and reflected in the portal of Acer India Pvt Ltd. A logical inference in such a case would be that the laptop was already sold for the purposes of warranty when the purchase was made by the defendant.
11.1.5.It is clear that the warranty can be computed only once by the manufacturing company and because the portal of Acer India reflects the details of product description of the laptop alongwith installation date and warranty expiry date which means that the laptop was already sold and the manufacturing company started calculating the warranty period from the date of communication of sale which is apparently prior to the date of sale as alleged by the defendant in the present transaction. This leads the court to conclude that this is a case of resale and not sale and the warranty can be honoured by the manufacturing company only from the date of sale and not from the date of resale.
11.1.6.It is not the case of the defendant that at the time of sale of laptops to the customers, the defendant ensured that the warranty would be provided to the customers from Acer India from the date of sale by the defendant. It has also not been pleaded by the defendant that the date of sale was communicated to the manufacturing company for calculation of the warranty period from the date of sale. Rather the case of the plaintiff is that pursuant to receiving of complaints from its customers the defendant checked from the portal of Acer India CS No.1435/18 M/s Karishma Computers Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Raj Infomatique 11/18 and got to know that the warranty of the laptops had already expired or was about to expire.
11.1.7.It is to be noted that the transaction under consideration in the present case is a commercial transaction and the defendant cannot plead ignorance of the prevailing practice and the standard procedure of the business. It was the duty of the defendant to ascertain the warranty period before selling the same to the end customers, however the defendant did so only when issues with the laptops arose. Admittedly the verification of the laptops with regard to the warranty period and authenticity of the plaintiff as an authorized distributor of Acer India was done by the defendants only pursuant to the complaints by its customers. What the defendant did after the complaint from its customers, the same could have been done at the time when the laptops were sold to the end customers, however the defendant failed to do so for the reasons best known to him.
11.1.8. In these circumstances, it remained a possibility that the defendants deliberately purchased the laptops without ascertaining the warranty of the laptops and the authenticity of the plaintiff to his own advantage and now in order to evade the liability towards the plaintiff which has arisen out of the purchase of the laptops from the plaintiff by the defendant, the defendant is coming up with such a defence. This leads to the conclusion that the defendant knowingly entered into such transactions and is presumed to have assumed the risk of spending money towards expenses incurred for the repair of the laptops. The defendant therefore cannot be allowed to set off his liability against the expenditure towards the repair of the laptops which he incurred knowing the risk involved in selling such kind of laptops which CS No.1435/18 M/s Karishma Computers Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Raj Infomatique 12/18 does not have the warranty period.
11.1.9. It is defendant's case that the plaintiff misrepresented to the defendants that they were the authorized distributor of Acer India Pvt Ltd and were authorized to sell the laptops. Believing the representation of the plaintiff company, defendant no.1 agreed to purchase the laptops from the plaintiff. It is therefore to be seen whether the misrepresentation as alleged by the defendant falls within the purview of section 18 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The same is reproduced below:-
18."Misrepresentation"defined-"Misrepresentation"means and includes-
(1) the positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true;
(2) any breach of duty which, without an intent to deceive, gains an advantage of the person committing it, or any one claiming under him, by misleading another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of any one claiming under him;
(3) causing, however innocently, a party to an agreement, to make a mistake as to the substance of the thing which is the subject of the agreement".
11.1.10. In the facts of the present case, the defendant has not pleaded that the information of the plaintiff, who made representations to the defendant, did not warrant the representations. There are no averments whatsoever to support the fact as to what assertion of the plaintiff made the defendant believe that the defendant is the authorized distributor of Acer India Pvt Ltd. It is trite that the defendant cannot take the plea of misrepresentation when the alleged representation made by the plaintiff can be easily CS No.1435/18 M/s Karishma Computers Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Raj Infomatique 13/18 detected by exercise of reasonable care and caution. The defendant has not pleaded as to what steps did the defendant take to ascertain as to whether the defendant was authorized distributor of Acer India Pvt Ltd or not.
11.1.11. In the instant case, the claim of the defendant is that since the plaintiff was never the authorized representative of the Acer India Pvt Ltd and therefore the warranty period could not have been extended by the defendant. The plaintiff however has failed to show as to on what basis does the defendant say that the warranty period can be extended by the distributor i.e defendant in the present case. In any case, the present suit does not relate to extension of warranty rather the defence of the defendant is with respect to the warranty of one year that is to be provided to the customers when the laptops were sold to the customers.
11.1.12. Moreover, the defendant is not a novice in the present business transaction and by way of written submissions, it was highlighted that the defendant company was also an authorized distributor of Acer India Pvt Ltd at one point of time. The transaction in question is a commercial transaction and the plaintiff cannot plead that he was not aware of the standard procedure prevailing in the business. The defendants are not laymen, who do not understand the implication of what they are doing. It is to be noted that the claim of the defendant that the defendant was not an authorized distributor was only when the defendant did not fulfill his obligations towards the plaintiff and did not pay the outstanding amount for the goods purchased. After having availed the benefit, in the sense that the defendant purchased the laptops from the plaintiff and sold the same to its customers for profit, the defendant cannot turn around and say CS No.1435/18 M/s Karishma Computers Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Raj Infomatique 14/18 that the plaintiff misrepresented the defendant to be an authorized representative.
11.1.13.It is further the claim of the defendant that defendant no.1 was forced to avail the services of VCL Technocare Pvt Ltd, an authorized service centre of Acer India Pvt Ltd and incurred expenditure which would have not been incurred, had the plaintiff not sold the expired warranty laptops or would have taken steps in getting the warranty extended before selling it to defendant no.1. It is averred that the plaintiff gave its consent to defendant no.1 to adjust the amount for the cost incurred by defendant no.1 towards getting the laptops repaired. Since this particular fact was pleaded by the defendant and therefore the onus was upon the defendant to prove the same. However, no evidence has been led by the defendant to the effect that the plaintiff had consented to set off the expenditure towards repair of the laptops.
11.1.14. In view of the foregoing reasons the defendant has clearly failed to establish its defence and hence the defendant is not entitled to claim any set off against the suit amount. As already noted above, the defendant is neither denying the alleged transaction nor denying the suit amount, rather claiming set off for the defence disclosed in the written statement. Since the defendant has not been able to establish its defence for the above discussed reasons, the plaintiff is held entitled for the principal amount of Rs.1,80,376/- in lieu of the purchases made by the defendant from the plaintiff.
11.1.15. Accordingly this issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
CS No.1435/18 M/s Karishma Computers Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Raj Infomatique 15/18 11.2. Issue no. (ii):-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest to the tune as prayed under prayer clause (b) ?OPP.
11.2.1.The onus to prove this issue is upon plaintiff. By way of prayer clause (b), the plaintiff seeks interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of invoice till September 2018 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
11.2.2.The plaintiff has quantified the interest amount at Rs.53,824/-. It is noted that the claim of the plaintiff from the date of invoice is on the ground that the amount became due from the date of invoices, however it is noticed that the present suit is on the basis of single sided ledger account as maintained by the plaintiff with the defendant. Perusal of ledger account reflects that the last payment received was on 25.07.2018. Accordingly, any interest to the plaintiff can be awarded only from 25.07.2018. The claimed interest of the plaintiff at the rate of 18% per annum is excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case. The just claim of the plaintiff shall be served if interest at the rate of 10% per annum is granted from 25.07.2018 till September 2018.
Accordingly the plaintiff is held entitled to interest at the rate of 10% per annum on Rs.1,80,376/-from 25.07.2018 till September 2018.
11.2.3.This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
11.3. Issue no.(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any future interest if so at what rate?OPP.
11.3.1.The onus to prove this issue is upon plaintiff.
11.3.2.By way of prayer clause (b) the plaintiff seeks a decree of future CS No.1435/18 M/s Karishma Computers Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Raj Infomatique 16/18 interest at the rate of 18% per annum on Rs.1,80,376/- from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of the decreetal amount. Interest at the rate of 18% is excessive in the facts of the present case. The just claim of the plaintiff shall be served if future interest at the rate 10% per annum is granted till the realization of the decreetal amount. Accordingly, the plaintiff is held entitled to future interest at the rate of 10% per annum on Rs.1,80,376/-.
11.3.3.It is clarified that pendente-lite interest can not be awarded to the plaintiff as no issue with regard to the same was framed. The plaintiff also never pressed for any pendente-lite interest during the course of proceedings.
11.3.4.This issue is decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants.
11.4. Issue No.(iv) Whether there arises no cause of action in favour of the plaintiff against the defendant, since the plaintiff had supplied defective laptops with expired / nearly expired warranty?OPD.
11.4.1.The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant.
11.4.2.In view of the findings at issue no.(i) this issue is decided against the defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
11.5. Issue No. (v) Whether the defendant is entitled to benefit of set off to the tune of Rs.1,80,376/- against the claim?OPD.
11.5.1.The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant.
11.5.2.Since this court has already found while adjudicating issue no.(i) that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any set off against the defendant. Accordingly, this issue is decided against the CS No.1435/18 M/s Karishma Computers Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Raj Infomatique 17/18 defendant and in favour of the plaintiff.
12. Relief 12.1. In view of the aforesaid appreciation and findings, the present suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is held entitled to recover an amount of Rs.1,80,376/- from the defendant along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 25.07.2018 till September 2018. Plaintiff is also held entitled to future interest at the rate of 10 % on Rs.1,80,376/- from the defendant.
12.2. Costs of the suit is also awarded in favour of plaintiff.
13. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
14. Copy of this judgment be given dasti, if prayed for.
15. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally signed by ANURADHA PRASAD ANURADHA Date: PRASAD 2020.02.03 15:36:13 +0530 Pronounced in the open Court (Anuradha Prasad) on this 31.01.2020 Civil Judge-01, South East, Saket Court, New Delhi. 31.01.2020 CS No.1435/18 M/s Karishma Computers Pvt Ltd Vs. M/s Raj Infomatique 18/18