Bangalore District Court
Canon India Private Limited vs M/S Printz Inn on 17 December, 2024
1
O.S.No.3635/2018
KABC010121732018
C.R.P.67 Govt. of Karnataka
Form No.9(Civil)
Title Sheet for
Judgment in Suits
(R.P.91)
TITLE SHEET FOR JUDGMENTS IN SUITS
IN THE COURT OF THE XLIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL JUDGE,
AT BENGALURU (CCH-45)
Dated this the 17th day of December, 2024
PRESENT: SRI. DODDEGOWDA.K, B.A., L.L.B.,
XLIV ADDL. CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS
JUDGE, BENGALURU.
O.S.No.3635/2018
PLAINTIFF : Canon India Private Limited
A company incorporated under the
Companies Act, 1956 having its
office at 7th floor, Building No.5
Epitome, DLF Cyber City
DLF Phase-III
Gurgaon-122002
Haryana.
(By Sri.V.H., Advocate)
DEFENDANT : M/s Printz Inn
No.30, 1st Cross,
Nanjappa Reddy Layout,
Koramangala, 8th Block,
2
O.S.No.3635/2018
Bangalore, Karnataka-560095
Through its Proprietor
Ms. Vijayalakshmi
(By Sri.B.R.K., Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit 28-05-2018
Nature of the suit Recovery of money
Date of commencement of 07-11-2022
recording of the evidence
Date on which the Judgment 17-12-2024
was pronounced
Total Duration Years Months Days
06 06 19
(DODDEGOWDA.K)
XLIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU CITY
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed for recovery of money of Rs.9,89,060/- with interest at the rate of 18% p.a from 20/04/2016 till the realization of the said amount including pendent-lite and future interest.
2. The case of the plaintiff in nutshell is that the Plaintiff is a well-known company engaged in the business 3 O.S.No.3635/2018 of importing, trading and marketing of various Canon products like Printers, Cameras, Fax, Scanners and other multifunctional devices and has a very good market value and goodwill. The Plaintiff is a world leader in imaging technologies which includes digital copiers, multi-functional peripherals, fax machines, inkjet and laser printers, scanners, all in ones, digital camcorders, photo printers and multimedia projectors, card printers and cable ID printers, etc., and holds a reputed position in the field of electronics and enjoys distinct name in this domain.
3. This suit is filed through Ms. Swati Gupta D/o Sh. K. S. Verma, working as Legal Counsel with the Plaintiff Company, who has been duly authorized by virtue of a Power of Attorney dated 09.11.2017, to, inter-alia, sign, verify and file this Suit and to do all the necessary acts in furtherance thereof.
4. It is submitted that the defendant is a sole proprietorship concern, having its office at No.30, 1 st Cross, Nanjappa Reddy Layout, Kormangala, 8 th Block, and is 4 O.S.No.3635/2018 primarily engaged in the business of printing.
5. The defendant being impressed with the quality of the products and services offered by the Plaintiff, approached the Plaintiff in November, 2015 and placed a Purchase Order dated 23.11.2015 (hereinafter referred to as "Said PO") for a total amount of Rs.23,73,750/- to purchase a Canon printer machine and in this regard made the down payment of 25% of the aforesaid amount i.e., Rs.5,93,438/- along with the Said PO.
6. It is submitted that vide the said purchase order the defendant agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.17,80,312/- in 9 equal EMI of Rs.1,97,813/- to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff being a customer oriented organization and as a token for initialization of good business bond with the defendant provided the defendant with 12500 free prints of A3 Color Prints along with the Said Machine.
7. Thereafter in furtherance of the said purchase order, the defendant herein vide certificate dated 26.11.2015, certified that the said machine so transported 5 O.S.No.3635/2018 at the office of the defendant is not meant for sale and has no commercial value. In furtherance to the Said purchase order the defendant entered into a Total Guarantee Agreement with the Plaintiff for the purpose of providing maintenance services of the Said Machine to the defendant. The said guarantee agreement starts from 27.11.2015 and valid till 26/11/2020 or for Rs.6,00,000/- prints (whichever is earlier).
8. It is submitted that in compliance of the terms of the Said purchase order dated 23.11.2015 in the most diligent manner supplied and installed the Said Machine in the premises of the defendant on 27.11.2015 vide its invoice bearing number 1507007014 dated 27.11.2015. The Said Machine was installed at the premises of the defendant to the satisfaction of the defendant and the defendant has ever since then raised any objection/s with respect to the delivery or installation of the Said Machine. The defendant has till date not raised any issues/complaint qua the working of the Said Machine. The defendant continued to 6 O.S.No.3635/2018 pay the amount as agreed under guarantee agreement and he could only manage to pay Rs.7,91,252/- in addition to the 25% down payment made. Thus, a sum of Rs.9,89,060/- is due and outstanding on the part of the defendant under the Said purchase order.
9. It is submitted that despite continuous follow up by the Plaintiff, the defendant failed to pay the outstanding amount to the Plaintiff. The repeated requests to the defendant to clear the outstanding dues, went in vain. As per the records maintained by the plaintiff a sum of Rs.9,89,060/- is still due and payable by the defendant on account of the outstanding amount with respect to the purchase price of the said machine under the Said purchase order. The Plaintiff aggrieved by the acts and conduct of the defendant was constrained to issue a letter dated 14.03.2017 to the defendant, which was duly served on the defendant. Despite of receipt of letter dated 14.03.2017, the defendant neither replied to the said letter nor paid the outstanding amount under the Said purchase order. Having 7 O.S.No.3635/2018 no other alterative, the Plaintiff has issued Legal Notice dated 26.09.2017 to the defendant, calling upon him to pay the outstanding amount of Rs.9,89,060/- with interest @ 18% per annum from 20.04.2016 till the date of its realization. Despite of service of notice dated 26.09.2017, the defendant neither paid the amount nor replied the notice. Hence, the present suit for recovery of money of Rs.9,89,060/- with interest.
10. In pursuance of the service of suit summons, the sole defendant appeared through its counsel and filed detailed written statement denying the averments of the plaint as under;
The suit filed by the Plaintiff, is false, frivolous and vexatious and based on the concocted documents and therefore, on this ground alone the suit is liable to dismissed in limine.
11. The above suit filed by the Plaintiff, is not maintainable in law or on facts as the same is filed with an intention of harassing this defendant and coerce this 8 O.S.No.3635/2018 defendant into their illegal terms.
12. The suit is untenable in law, on facts and circumstances of the case. The averments made in the plaint are baseless and are wholly misconceived. The Plaintiff has suppressed material facts and they have not approached this Court with clean hands.
13. The averments made in the plaint are bald, vague, lacks, particulars more so, when the cause of action for the suit is imaginary and invented, no material is placed by the Plaintiff to substantiate the allegation made in the Plaint. The framing of the suit is defective.
14. The plaintiff is misrepresenting the fact and producing concocted documents along with cooked up stories in order to the obtain favorable orders, to make illegal and unlawful gains from this defendant.
15. Without prejudice to the contentions raised above, the averments made in Paragraph No. 01 of the Plaint about the Plaintiff company, its business, alleged goodwill in the market and various products explained in the 9 O.S.No.3635/2018 said paragraph are not within the knowledge of this defendant and hence denied as false and the Plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.
16. The averments made in Paragraph No.2 of the plaint are denied as false and the Plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same. It is further submitted that, a practicing advocate cannot sign the Plaint and the Vakalath and conduct the case. Thus the very institution of the Plaint is illegal and without authority of law. Hence, on this ground alone the above Plaint is liable to be dismissed.
17. The averments made in Paragraph No. 4 of the Plaint that the defendant being impressed with the quality of the products and services offered by the Plaintiff approached the Plaintiff in and around November, 2015 are false and denied by the defendant. In fact the defendant came across with an advertisement material and contacted the Plaintiff to know about the product and services. Subsequently, the representatives of the Plaintiff have been visiting the office of the defendant frequently and used to 10 O.S.No.3635/2018 dissuade her to purchase the Canon product for her business. Ultimately, the Plaintiff is a business tactic influenced and convinced the defendant thereby the Defendant placed the Purchase Order dated 23/11/2015 to purchase the Canon Image digital printer for a total amount of Rs.23,73,750/- and paid 25% of the aforesaid amount I.e., Rs.5,93,438/- but all the other allegations made against the defendant are false and hence denied and therefore, the Plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.
18. It is submitted that, the averments in Paragraph No. 5 of the Plaint that the defendant agreed to pay the balance amount of Rs.17,80,312/- in 9 equal EMI of Rs.1,97,813/-. However, the Plaintiff conveniently, left out assurances and undertakings that Plaintiff had assured the defendant and that the machine will commence working only after getting the password from the Plaintiff. The defendant with the high hope of using the machine had invested her hard earned money in the machine i.e., Rs.5,93,438/- paid by her as advance amount along with the 11 O.S.No.3635/2018 order. Subsequent to the delivery of the machine, it is lying without any use, as the Plaintiff has not provided any instructions, help, service or assistance, as assured by them before purchase of the machine. Hence, the averments made in the said paragraph are denied by the defendant as false and the Plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.
19. The averments made in Paragraph No. 6 of the Plaint are false and frivolous allegations and therefore, the Plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.
20. The averments made in Paragraph No. 7 of the Plaint regarding the issuance of the certificate along with the purchase order which was mandatory for the Plaintiff to dispatch the machine to the defendant, the machine ordered by the defendant, is for the purpose of running her business and not for further sale of the machine by the defendant and the alleged certificate is issued by the defendant in compliance with the Purchase Order etc is of no relevance to the facts and circumstances of the case. 12
O.S.No.3635/2018
21. The averments made in Paragraph No. 8 of the Plaint regarding execution of the alleged Total Guarantee Agreement, is true, but the said agreement is a pre-printed document and the defendant was advised to sign the same as it is to be submitted along with the purchase order. In the alleged agreement, there is no mention about the date of the execution or the commencement and validity as alleged in the said paragraph of the plaint. There are several blanks, which were not filled by the Plaintiff or the defendant and the defendant is provided with the photocopy of the said alleged agreement and the details mentioned therein are filled in by the Plaintiff themselves and not by the defendant. The defendant was instructed to sign in every page of the document and at the last page, where the Plaintiff had marked it with the symbol "x". Hence the very document cannot be looked into. Further, the terms of the agreement commences only if the machine is put to work and services rendered by the Plaintiff. But in the case on hand, the Plaintiff did not provide the assured service etc., 13 O.S.No.3635/2018 to the defendant and the said machine is still lying in the premises of the defendant without functioning. Therefore, the averments made in the said paragraph of the plaint are denied by the defendant, as they are false and frivolous and the Plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.
22. The averments made in Paragraph No. 9 of the Plaint, except the delivery of the machine and raising of the invoice, all other averments are absolutely false. In fact the machine is not installed in the premises of the defendant and the Plaintiff has not provided the assured services, guidance etc., to the defendant to operate the machine. Further they have not even furnished the password for putting the machine in operation and hence the allegation that the machine is installed in the premises of the defendant is totally denied as false and the Plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.
23. The defendant had paid Rs.7,91,252/- i.e., 4 EMIs on the assurance that he would assist the defendant in putting the machine in working condition by providing the 14 O.S.No.3635/2018 necessary guidance and services. But the Plaintiff failed to furnish even the password to open the machine and put it to work and the machine is lying as it is and where it is condition in the premises of defendant. The defendant vide email dated 01/10/2018, had requested the Plaintiff to depute their personnel at least to install the machine in the newly rented premises, with the password/key, guidance and assured services. But, for the reasons best known to the Plaintiff, they did not depute their personnel.
24. It is submitted that when the defendant could realize the Plaintiff is interested only in illegally recovering the balance amount and were not interested in providing the service to the defendant, the defendant did not make the payment of the balance installments, as the defendant is not in a position to earn a single rupee out of the new machine purchased by her and having invested huge amount without any returns, she has incurred huge loss. Hence the allegations made in the said paragraph of the plaint are denied as false and the Plaintiff is put to strict 15 O.S.No.3635/2018 proof of the same.
25. The allegations made in Paragraph No. 11 of the Plaint are absolutely false and therefore entire allegations are denied by this defendant as false and the Plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.
26. The averments made in Paragraph No. 12 of the Plaint that the Defendant is liable to pay an amount of Rs.9,89,060/- is totally false. The defendant has paid advance amount along with the purchase order and has also paid 4 installments with the fervent hope of increasing the business. But due to the attitude of the Plaintiff and non- furnishing of the key/password for operating the machine, led to idling of the machine for years together and thereby the defendant had to incur huge loss in the business and amount invested for purchasing the machine became extremely futile. As already stated, it was the Plaintiff who was not providing the necessary assistance as assured at the time of supplying the machine. Hence, the entire allegations made in the said paragraph are false and denied 16 O.S.No.3635/2018 by the defendant and the Plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.
27. The Defendant submits that, the averments made in Paragraph No. 13 of the Plaint are misleading and false. The alleged letter dated 14/03/2017, alleged to have been issued to the defendant is not received by the Defendant even to this date.
28. The averments made in Paragraph Nos. 14 and 15 are absolutely false. The Defendant has no intention to deceive or have any mala fide intention against the Plaintiff. The defendant has made the advance payment and also made further payments. Infact, it is the Plaintiff who failed to provide required services including password for using the machine. Had the Plaintiff provided the above services in time, the defendant would have put the machine into use and would have improved her business, but due to the disregard and noncompliance of their assurance, the defendant had incurred huge loss and the machine which she purchased became useless and lying idle in her 17 O.S.No.3635/2018 premises. Hence, the allegation made in paragraph 14 and 15 of the plaint are denied by the defendant and the Plaintiff is put to strict proof of the same.
29. With regard to Paragraph Nos. 16 and 18 of the Plaint, regarding issue of the alleged notice dated 26/09/2017, it is submitted that the defendant has not received any notice and therefore, the question of making payment does not arise.
30. The averments made in Paragraph No. 19 of the Plaint regarding the agreed rate of interest is totally false. At no point of time the defendant has agreed to pay on any amount and there is no contract between the Plaintiff and the defendant to pay interest. Hence, the averments in the said paragraph are denied as false and the Plaintiff is put to strict proof the same.
31. The allegations made in Paragraph No.20 of the Plaintiff, it is submitted that the plaintiff has not performed his part of the contract by providing the necessary assistance and did not even provide the key/password to 18 O.S.No.3635/2018 open and operate the machine. Hence, the allegations in the said paragraph are hereby denied as false.
32. It is submitted that the Plaintiff has played fraud and misrepresented the facts for its own convenience and benefits and have sold the machine at a higher price with the sole intention of cheating the defendant and enrich themselves. Further, the Plaintiff even after repeated requests by the defendant to uninstall the machine and take back the same have not acted upon the request made by the defendant as the said machine has no resale value and in the market there are other competitors who provide the machine at half the cost of the machine supplied by the Plaintiff to the defendant. There is no cause of action for the present suit and the cause of action pleaded in the plaint is illusory one. Accordingly, the sole defendant prays to dismiss the suit.
33. Based on the rival pleadings of the parties, the predecessor of this court has framed the following issues:-
1. Whether the defendant proves that the 19 O.S.No.3635/2018 plaintiff failed to provide the adequate support and service to the defendant for the machine supplied by the plaintiff?
2. Whether the defendant proves that without adequate support and service he is unable to use the machine?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim with interest @ 18% as prayed for?
4. To what Decree or Order?
34. In order to prove the case of the plaintiff the GPA holder of the plaintiff examined as PW.1 and got marked Ex.P.1 to 13 documents. The GPA holder of the defendant has stepped into the witness box and filed affidavit in lieu of examination in chief and got marked Ex.D.1 by confrontation and Ex.D.2 to 4 on his behalf.
35. Heard the arguments of counsels for both the parties and perused the records, now the findings of this court to the aforesaid issues are as under:-
Issue No.1: As negative
Issue No.2: As negative
Issue No.3: Partly in the affirmative
Issue No.4: As per the final order, for
20
O.S.No.3635/2018
the following;-
REASONS
36. Issue No.1 to 3: Since these issues are
intrinsically interconnected, they have taken up for
discussion together in order to avoid the repetition of the law and the alleged facts.
The case of the plaintiff in brief is that the defendant has approached the plaintiff in the month of November 2015 and placed a purchase order dated 23/11/2015, to purchase Canon image C600 digital printer with scanners and POD decklight, herein after called as the said machine and in this regard, the defendant has paid down payment of 25% i.e Rs.5,93,438/- out of the total sale price of Rs.23,73,750/- and agreed to pay the balance price in 9 EMI's of Rs.1,97,813/-. Accordingly, the defendant has paid a total sum of Rs.7,91,252/- in 4 equal installments but failed to pay the remaining 5 installments, totally amounting to Rs.9,89,060/-. Hence, the present suit for recovery of money with interest at rate of 18%. 21
O.S.No.3635/2018
37. The GPA holder of the plaintiff has reiterated the averments of the plaint by filing examination in chief affidavit. Ex.P.1 is the GPA dated 05/09/2022 executed infavor of PW.1. Ex.P.2 is the purchase order dated 23/11/2015 which discloses that the defendant has purchased the said machine for total sum of Rs.23,73,750/-. Ex.P.2 also discloses the payment of 25% down payment i.e Rs.5,93,438/- and balance amount of Rs.17,80,312/- to be paid in 9 months of (EMI's of Rs.1,97,813/-). Ex.P.3 is the memorandum of understanding dated 23/11/2015. Ex.P.4 is the Guarantee agreement. Ex.P.5 to 8 are the tax invoice dated 23/11/2015 which further depicts that the said machine has been sold to the defendant for total sum of Rs.23,73,750/-. Ex.P.9 is the legal notice issued by the plaintiff calling upon the defendant to pay the dues of Rs.9,89,060/- along with interest at the rate of 18% P.A. Ex.P.10 is the track shipment status/ consignment status discloses the service of notice on the defendant. Ex.P.11 is the certificate as required under Sec.65-B of Indian 22 O.S.No.3635/2018 Evidence Act. Ex.P.12 is the board resolution passed by the plaintiff company.
38. Now, with this evidence it is to be seen whether the plaintiff is able to prove its case by preponderance of probabilities. In the case on hand, the defendant has not disputed the purchase of the machine. She also not disputed the total sale price of Rs.23,73,750/-. Admittedly, the defendant has paid 25% of the sale price as down payment at the time of purchasing the machine. It is also not in dispute that the defendant has agreed to pay the balance amount in 9 EMI's. Admittedly, the defendant has paid total sum of Rs.7,91,252/- in 4 EMI's (Rs.1,97,813X4=Rs.7,91,252/-).
39. The defence of defendant is that the plaintiff has failed to provide adequate support and service to the defendant and without the said adequate support and service she is unable to use the machine. Thus she incurred huge loss and therefore, she is not liable to pay the balance sale price amount. The burden of proving the issue No.1 23 O.S.No.3635/2018 and 1 lies on the defendant. DW.1 placed reliance on Ex.D.1 to 3 documents. Ex.D.1 is the Bank pass book pertaining to defendant which discloses that the defendant has paid 4 installments of Rs.1,97,813/- thus in all, Rs.7,91,252/- was paid by the defendant. Even as per their own documents, the defendant has paid only a sum of Rs.7,91,252/-. The defendant has not disputed the balance sale price due to the plaintiff. The defendant has pleaded deficiency of service. In other words, it is the case of the defendant that since the plaintiff did not provide key/password to open and operate the machine and failed to provide the adequate support and service to the defendant, she is unable to use the machine thus she incurred huge loss. But the defendant has not produced any documents to show the alleged inadequacy/ deficiency of service. Even he has not chosen to issue notice as to the alleged deficiency of service nor approached consumer forum for the said deficiency.
40. Plead and proof is the cardinal principle of civil law. For the mere allegation that the plaintiff did not 24 O.S.No.3635/2018 provide key/password to operate the machine by itself cannot be a ground to discard the case of the plaintiff. It is suffice to discuss here that, in the course of cross examination of DW.1 categorically admits the liability to pay Rs.9,89,060/-. The said admission reads as under;
It is true to suggest that the defendant is liable to pay Rs.9,89,060/-.
The defendant has failed to produce evidence to substantiate the alleged deficiency of service. Even Ex.D.1 produced by the defendant, would makes it clear that she has paid total sum of Rs.7,91,252/- in 4 EMI's. In the course of cross examination dated 11/11/2024 DW.1 admits the liability of the defendant. Down payment of Rs.5,93,438/- is not in dispute. The total sale price is not in dispute. Hence, on clear mathematical calculation, it is crystal clear that the defendant is due a sum of Rs.9,89,060/-.
41. During the arguments stage, the counsel for the defendant has raised the jurisdictional issue stating 25 O.S.No.3635/2018 that as per the agreement of the parties, it is the courts at Delhi has to try the suit in the event of any dispute between the parties. Even as could be seen from Ex.P.4 it is clear that the disputes arising between the parties in respect of terms and conditions of the agreement, has to be tried by the courts at Delhi. That apart, the parties have not raised the jurisdictional issue at the earliest possible opportunity as required under Sec.21 of the C.P.C. Moreover, no such objection was raised either in the written statement or during the evidence stage. It is not open to the parties through a contract to confer jurisdiction on any court which did not otherwise have such jurisdiction at all. In the instant case, the cause of action arose within the limits of this court and the defendant is residing at Bangalore. Hence, the very contention of the defendant that this court lacks the jurisdiction to try the suit is hereby rejected.
42. With regard to the interest, the plaintiff has sought for 18% from 20/04/2016 till the realization of the 26 O.S.No.3635/2018 balance amount of Rs.9,89,060/-. Admittedly, there is no contract between the parties with regard to rate of interest. Whatever the interest sought for by the plaintiff is too exorbitant and unreasonable. Hence, this court is of the considered opinion that awarding interest at the rate of 9% from the date of payment of last installment i.e 24/11/2016, is just and proper. Accordingly, the issue No.1 and 2 are answered as negative and issue No.3 partly in the affirmative to the effect that the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs.9,89,060/- with interest at the rate of 9% P.A from 24/11/2016 till the realization of the said amount.
43. Issue No.4: In view of the foregoing discussion on issue No.1 to 3 and the findings thereon, this court proceeds to pass the following;
ORDER The suit of the plaintiff for recovery of money is decreed in part with costs as under;
The plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs.9,89,060/- along with interest at the rate of 9% p.a from 24/11/2016 till the realization 27 O.S.No.3635/2018 of the said amount.
The defendant shall pay the said amount within 4 months from the date of the decree.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof corrected, signed and then pronounced by me, in open Court, on this the 17th day of December, 2024.) (DODDEGOWDA.K) XLIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE BENGALURU CITY ANNEXURE I. List of witnesses examined on behalf of:
(a)Plaintiff's side :
PW.1 Manjula M Nath
(b)Defendant's side :
DW.1 Divakara K
List of documents exhibited on behalf of :
(a)Plaintiff's side :
Ex.P.1 GPA dated 05/09/2022 executed infavor of PW.1 Ex.P.2 Purchase order dated 23/11/2015 Ex.P.3 Memorandum of understanding dated 23/11/2015.
Ex.P.4 Guarantee agreement.
Ex.P.5 to 8 tax invoice dated 23/11/2015
Ex.P.9 legal notice
28
O.S.No.3635/2018
Ex.P.10 Track shipment status/ consignment
status discloses the service of notice on the defendant Ex.P.11 Certificate as required under Sec.65 B of Indian Evidence Act Ex.P.12 Board resolution passed by the plaintiff company.
Ex.P.13 Power of attorney dated 29/05/2023
(b)Defendants' side :
Ex.D.1 Bank pass book Ex.D.2 Notarized GPA dated 22.07.2024 Ex.D.3 The e-mail print out dated 01.10.2018 Ex.D.4 Certificate as required u/Sec.63 Bharathiya Sakshya Adiniyam, 2023 R/w 65B of Indian Evidence Act in respect of Ex.D.3 XLIV ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BENGALURU CITY.