Delhi District Court
Cs - 516/17 vs Ricoh India Limited on 11 October, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. GURVINDER PAL SINGH:
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 01 SOUTH EAST
DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
CS - 516/17
M/s. Bhagirath Communications
Through Mr. Deepak Kumar Patil (Proprietor)
Shop no. 13 & 14, Kalyankar Complex
Near S.T. Stand, Sangli - 416416.
....... Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Ricoh India Limited
Corporate Office :
52B, Okhala Industrial Area
PhaseIII, New Delhi - 110020
India.
Registered Office :
1104, Arcadia
Nariman Point
Mumbai, India.
2. Nilava Maitra
(Managing Director)
52B, Okhala Industrial Area
PhaseIII, New Delhi - 110020
India.
3. Nobuaki Majima
(Director)
Ricoh India Limited
CS - 516/17 M/s. Bhagirath Communications Vs. Ricoh India Ltd. & Ors. page 1 of 21
52B, Okhala Industrial Area
PhaseIII, New Delhi - 110020
India.
4. Masanori Ishida
(Additional Director)
52B, Okhala Industrial Area
PhaseIII, New Delhi - 110020
India.
5. Abhishek Nagar
(Secretary)
52B, Okhala Industrial Area
PhaseIII, New Delhi - 110020
India.
....... Defendants
Date of Institution : 25.10.2010
Date of Arguments : 04.09.2017
Date of Judgment : 11.10.2017
JUDGMENT
1. Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 75,83,700/ alongwith future and pendente lite interest @ 15% per annum against the defendants.
2. Adumbrated in brief the facts of the case of plaintiff are :
Plaintiff is a proprietorship firm and has been working as a delar/Authorised Business Associate of the defendant no.1.
CS - 516/17 M/s. Bhagirath Communications Vs. Ricoh India Ltd. & Ors. page 2 of 21 Defendant no.1 is engaged in the manufacturing of Colour Multifunction Printers, Black and White Multi function printers, Mono and Colour Laser Printers and Copy Printers. Defendants no.2 to 5 are jointly and collectively responsible for all the working, decision making and operations on behalf of the defendant no.1. The dealer agreement dated 01.04.1999 was for a period of 1 year and was renewable after the initial period at the option of the defendant company. The work of the plaintiff was appreciated by the defendant company. It is averred that the plaintiff had spent a huge amount of money in terms of trained service engineers, trained sales staff, accountant, back office staff, furniture etc. as per the specific designs/requirement of the defendant no.1. The plaintiff also spent huge amount of money for the advertisement/sales promotion of the products of the defendant no.1. The plaintiff played a major role in building the brand name and developing the goodwill of the defendant no.1 at Sangli District.
3. It is further averred that despite the excellent performance of the plaintiff and the fact that plaintiff has spent a huge amount of money, the defendants no.1 to 5 had terminated the Dealership of the plaintiff vide their letter dated 19.11.2009 by raising several false, baseless and bogus allegations on the plaintiff. It is submitted that the letter dated 19.11.2009 is in sheer violation CS - 516/17 M/s. Bhagirath Communications Vs. Ricoh India Ltd. & Ors. page 3 of 21 of the terms of the Dealership Agreement. It is further averred that in 2005, after the merger of Gestetner India Ltd. with defendant no.1, top management of the defendant company was looked after by the officers of Gestetner India Ltd. and thereafter reseller for Gestetner India Ltd. Products, namely Yash Enterprises, a proprietorship firm was appointed in Sangli District. As a result, plaintiff was thrown out of the Ricoh business and defendant no.1 gave the sole dealership of its products for Sangli district to Yash Enterprises with the hard earned 250 customer's service and spares supply authority of the plaintiff.
4. It is further averred that defendant no.1 also tried to malign the reputation of the plaintiff with its customers and other business associates by issuing letters dated 23.11.2009 to all the customers of the plaintiff wherein defendant no.1 had requested them to stop their business with the plaintiff. These acts of defendant no.1 caused a great loss of reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff which had in fact also affected other businesses of the plaintiff. These acts of defendant no.1 also resulted in huge mental shock and harassment to the plaintiff, his family, staff and their families. The plaintiff had also issued several blank cheques towards spares indent which the defendant no. 1 to 5 had not even returned to the plaintiff. The plaintiff issued a CS - 516/17 M/s. Bhagirath Communications Vs. Ricoh India Ltd. & Ors. page 4 of 21 legal notice dated 17.04.2010 through its counsel to pay Rs. 1,00,50,000/ (Rs. One Crore fifty thousand only) towards security deposit; business loss due to illicit termination of the dealership agreement by the defendant company and future business losses arising therefrom. However the plaintiff has confined its claim for Rs. 75,83,700/ as per the books of Accounts maintained by the plaintiff which is as follows :
S. No. PARTICULARS AMOUNT
(Rs.)
1. Loss of Profit 17,00,000/-
2. Loss of future business 17,00,000/-
3. Loss of 4C income (@ Rs. 4,50,000.- p.a. for 5 22,50,000/-
years)
4. Salaries of 4 trained Service Engineers & two 11,52,000/-
sales executives salary (@ Rs. 48,000/- per
month for 2 years)
5. Salaries of 2 back office staff @ Rs. 8,000/- per 1,92,000/-
month for 2 years
6. Office Rent @ Rs. 10,000/- per month for 2 years 2,40,000/-
7. Computer, Demo copier machine, Four two 1,76,000/-
wheelers for service engineers
8. Furniture & lights etc. 1,10,000/-
9. Letter heads, envelops, Billing invoices, stickers, 13,700/-
delivery challans, visiting cards, Leaflets etc.
10. Refundable security amount deposited by the 50,000/-
plaintiff with the defendant no.1 TOTAL 75,83,700/-
It is further averred that despite best efforts plaintiff could not recover the said amount, resultant had been this suit.
CS - 516/17 M/s. Bhagirath Communications Vs. Ricoh India Ltd. & Ors. page 5 of 21
5. Defendants 1 to 5 filed written statement denying the averments made by the plaintiff and submitted that plaintiff was appointed as Dealer/Authorised Business Associate at Sangli in Maharasthra by defendants for a period of one year. The defendants further extended the agreement with effect from 01.04.2009 for next one year. The plaintiff was a 'non exclusive;' dealer of Ricoh for Sangli District and Ricoh had right to appoint more than one dealer for one territory. The customers and machines in field always pertained to defendants and the plaintiff was only authorised to promote sales of Ricoh machines by way of finding out new customers and to providing after sales services to Ricoh MIF, in lieu of commission, bons/incentives, reimbursements etc. payable to plaintiff and renewal or nonrenewal of the agreement was the sole discretion of the defendants. Subsequently, the plaintiff inspite of all the cooperation and assistance provided by the defendants, failed to achieve the sales targets and had started causing annoyance to a few customers of defendants. It is further averred that the plaintiffs breached several clauses contained in the Dealership Agreement dated 01.04.2009. In terms of Clause 18 of the Dealership Agreement the defendants have the right to terminate the Agreement forthwith in the event of breach of any of the clauses mentioned therein. When the plaintiff failed to cooperate with the defendant towards drawing a business plan CS - 516/17 M/s. Bhagirath Communications Vs. Ricoh India Ltd. & Ors. page 6 of 21 the plaintiff even attempted to instigate other dealers by writing prejudicial emails. The email dated 11.11.2009 was addressed to one of the dealers in Goa instigating the dealer to go against the defendants.
6. It is further averred that there has been a violation of the clause 18.1.3 which proves for failure of the plaintiff to provide after sale service. There was a violation of the said clause by the plaintiff towards servicing Bharti Vidyapeeth. The plaintiff was required to remove the defects, however the plaintiff provided excuses of the defect being outside the scope of warranty policy and refused to service the customer. As the plaintiff refused to provide customer service, the defendant intervened and addressed the complaint. In the termination letter, the incident with the said customer was specifically mentioned as one of the reasons of the Agreement.
7. It is further averred that in the financial year 200910 the plaintiff failed to deliver the assigned sales targets; caused irritation to a few clients as aforesaid and became recalcitrant in responding with the sales and marketing officials of the defendants. Plaintiff opposed, unauthorizedly and unlawfully the appointment of other dealer/s by the defendants. The plaintiff also instigated other dealers of the defendants. Plaintiff CS - 516/17 M/s. Bhagirath Communications Vs. Ricoh India Ltd. & Ors. page 7 of 21 committed breach of the terms of agreement. The defendants made every effort to amicably resolve the issues but to no avail. The defendants were left with no option but to exercise their discretion to withdraw the dealership by their letter dated 19.11.2009. It is further averred that the termination of the dealership agreement was absolutely reasonable, valid and authorized.
8. Defendants also filed counter claim for recovery of Rs. 5,238/ alongwith pendente lite and future interest. It is averred that as per the statement of accounts of plaintiff with the defendants as on 31.03.2010, the plaintiff is liable to pay Rs. 54,496/ towards MIF support, training charges etc. and after adjustment of the security deposit of Rs. 50,000/, the balance amount still payable from the plaintiff is Rs. 4,496/ and an amount of Rs. 742/ towards interest @ 18% p.a. from 01.04.2010 till 28.02.2011 and therefore the total sum to be recovered from plaintiff is Rs. 5,238/.
9. Plaintiff filed replication in which he reiterated the facts of the suit and denied the averment of written statement.
10. Plaintiff filed reply to the counter claim reiterating facts of CS - 516/17 M/s. Bhagirath Communications Vs. Ricoh India Ltd. & Ors. page 8 of 21 plaint and denying and controverting the facts of counter claim.
11. Admission/denial of plaintiff's document was conducted on 24.08.2011 and on 31.10.2011 wherein the documents of the plaintiff were admitted by the defendant viz. (i) copy of certificate of Incorporation as Ex. PI; (ii) copy of memorandum of Association as Ex. PII; (iii) Letter of intent dated 11.11.1998 by defendants to plaintiff as Ex. P2 ; (iv) Certificate issued by defendants certifying plaintiff as Authorised Business Associate as Ex. PIII; (v) letter dated 28.05.2007 to plaintiff by defendants and the copy of agreement as Ex. P3; (vi) copy of advertisements of defendant showing M/s. Bhagirath Communications as its dealer as Ex. P4 (colly); (vii) certificates of excellence awarded by the defendant to plaintiff as Ex. P5 (colly); (viii) Letter dated 19.11.2009 sent to plaintiff by defendant as Ex. P6; (ix) Letter dated 20.05.2009 addressed to plaintiff as Ex. P7; (x) copy of statement of plaintiff for quarterly commission as Ex. P8; (xi) copy of another statement of plaintiff of October 2009 as Ex. P9; (xii) copy of special price request form dated 30.09.98 as Ex. P10; (xiii) email dated 19.09.2008 as Ex. P11; (xiv) email dated 31.03.2009 of which receipt is admitted and contents are denied as Ex. P12; email dated 30.01.2009 as Ex. P14; letters dated 31.08.2006 and 18.09.2006 sent by plaintiff to defendant as Ex. P15; letters dated 23.11.2009 sent by defendant to the various customers as CS - 516/17 M/s. Bhagirath Communications Vs. Ricoh India Ltd. & Ors. page 9 of 21 Ex. P16 (colly); email dated 25.11.2009 as Ex. P18; legal notice to defendant dated 17.04.2010 as Ex. P19; reply on behalf of defendant dated 19.06.2010 to the legal notice as Ex. P20.
12. Admission/denial of defendant's documents was conducted on 21.02.2012 wherein the documents of the defendant were admitted by the plaintiff viz. (i) Service Call Report of defendant as Ex. D1; (ii) Memo dated 15.07.2009 as Ex. D2;
(iii) Dr/Credit Memo dated 29.07.2009 as Ex. D3 and Dr/Credit Memo dated 21.09.2009 as Ex. D4; (iv) letter dated 28.05.2009 sent by Branch Service Manager to all Ricoh Pune Dealers as Ex. D5; (v) resolution dated 20.01.2011 as Ex. D6; (vi) email dated 11.10.2009 as Ex. D7 (also Ex. DW1/2); (vii) email dated 11.11.2009 as Ex. D8 (also Ex. DW1/3); (viii) Service Call report of defendant as Ex. D9 (also Ex. DW1/4); (ix) quotation of plaintiff dated 12.10.2009 as Ex. D10 (also Ex. DW1/5); (x) Invoice dated 31.10.2009 as Ex. D11(also Ex. DW1/6) ; (xi) Service Call report of defendant as Ex. D12 (also Ex. DW1/7); (xii) email dated 12.11.2009 as Ex. D13 (also Ex. DW1/8); (xiii) Memos dated 15.07.2009, 29.07.2009, 30.08.09, 21.09.2009 15.10.2009 are Ex. D14 to D18 respectively (also Ex. DW1/9 to Ex. DW1/13 respectively); (xiv) copy of letter dated 23.11.2009 as Ex. D19 (also Ex. DW1/14); (xv) copy of CS - 516/17 M/s. Bhagirath Communications Vs. Ricoh India Ltd. & Ors. page 10 of 21 letter dated 03.12.2009 as Ex. D20 (also Ex. DW1/15); (xvi) Dr/Credit memo dated 31.12.2009 as Ex. D21 (also Ex. DW1/16); (xvii) copies of Invoices dated 12.11.2009, 12.11.2009, 24.11.2009, 24.11.2009 as Ex. D22 to D25 (also Ex. DW1/18 to Ex. DW1/21); (xvii) Invoices dated 30.11.2009 as Ex. D26 and D27 (also Ex. DW1/24); (xviii) Letter dated 28.05.2009 as Ex. D28 (also Ex. DW1/25); (xix) Letter dated 29.04.2009 as Ex. D29 (also Ex. DW1/26); (xx) email dated 28.07.2009 as Ex. D30 (also Ex. DW1/27).
13. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 30.03.2012.
1. Whether the termination of the dealership agreement of the plaintiff by the defendant no.1 is wrongful? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 75,83,700/ as claimed in the suit? OPP.
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 15% per annum on the amount, as claimed in the suit? OPP.
4. Whether the defendant no.1 is entitled to the counter claim amount of Rs. 5,238/ alongwith pendent lite and future interest? OPD.
5. Relief.
CS - 516/17 M/s. Bhagirath Communications Vs. Ricoh India Ltd. & Ors. page 11 of 21
14. In evidence, Sh. Deepak Kumar Patil, Proprietor of the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 vide affidavit Ex PW1/A. PW1 relied upon abovementioned documents Ex. P1 to P20 as admitted by the defendant and Ex. R1, the audited balance of the plaintiff for the Assessment Years 20072008, 20082009 and 20092010. PW1 was crossexamined.
15. The defendants got examined Sh. Kunal Das Gupta, Regional Business Manager - West of defendant no.1 as DW1 vide affidavit Ex. DW1/A and relied upon abovementioned documents Ex. D1 to D31 and documents viz. (1) Dr/Credit memo dated 29.07.2009 as Ex. DW1/10; (2) memo dated 30.08.2009 as Ex. DW1/11; Dr/Credit Memo dated 21.09.2009 as Ex. DW1/12, memo dated 15.10.2009 as Ex. DW1/13; memo dated 15.02.2010 as Ex. DW1/17; dishonoured cheque of Rs. 64,391/ dated 24.11.2009 as Ex. DW1/22; Return cheque Advice of HSBC Bank dated 01.12.2009 as Ex. DW1/23. DW1 was crossexamined.
16. Ld. Counsel for defendant relied upon the following precedents:
(i) Keshav Nilkanth Joglekar Vs. Commissioner of Police, Greater Bombay and Ors. 1956 SCR 653: AIR 1957 SC 28:
1957 Cr. LJ 10 CS - 516/17 M/s. Bhagirath Communications Vs. Ricoh India Ltd. & Ors. page 12 of 21
(ii) Nirmala Kwatra Vs. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , 2013 SCC OnLine Del 4783 : (2013) 205 DLT 583 (DB) and
(iii) Ramnath International Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Anr. MANU/SC/8802/2006.
17. I have heard arguments addressed by Sh. Anubhav Anand, Ld. Counsel for plaintiff; Sh. S. Sharan, Ld. Counsel for defendants; and have given thoughts to the rival contentions put forth, pleadings of the parties, evidence, written arguments and have also examined the record of the case.
18. My issue wise findings are as under :
Findings on Issue no.1
1. Whether the termination of the dealership agreement of the plaintiff by the defendant no.1 is wrongful? OPP.
19. Dealership agreement part of Ex. P3 is the admitted document of parties and inter alia embodies following Clause 18 :
"18 TERMINATION
18.1 Notwithstanding clause 1.2 RICOH may
terminate this Agreement forthwith by notice in writing to the Dealer and /or levy a penalty upto a maximum of entire Security Deposit amount, in case:
18.1.1 There is a significant change in the legal/financial status and credit worthiness of the Dealer.
CS - 516/17 M/s. Bhagirath Communications Vs. Ricoh India Ltd. & Ors. page 13 of 21 18.1.2 The Dealer has attempted to do or has done any act prejudicial to interests of RICOH then in that event RICOH may summarily and without any notice terminate this Agreement notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein without being liable in any manner whatsoever to the Dealer for the same.
18.1.3 The Dealer is in material breach of any of the terms of the Agreement including without limitation to the settlement of the invoices of the Products ordered and /or failure to provide efficient after sales service and/or failure to comply with the all laws(statutory and common) rules which govern the conduct of the Dealers business including any relevant code of practice.
18.1.4 The Dealer fails to meet the sales target of the Products as assigned by RICOH from time to time.
18.2 Upon termination of this Agreement, howsoever arising the rights of the either party against the other, which have accrued at the date of termination shall not be effected.
18.3 RICOH is entitled to force the Dealer to cease forthwith the SERVICE SUPPORT to RICOH MIF during 180 days notice period of termination, as specified in the Clause 1.2.
18.4 The expiry or sooner termination of this agreement shall be without prejudice to any claim, remedy or right of action previously accrued to either party against the other.
18.5 Termination of this Agreement for whatever reason shall not entitle the dealer to any compensation in respect of such termination."
CS - 516/17 M/s. Bhagirath Communications Vs. Ricoh India Ltd. & Ors. page 14 of 21
20. Afore elicited terms of the aforesaid agreement empowers defendant with right to terminate said agreement forthwith in the event of breach of any of the clauses. Email dated 11.11.2009 Ex. D8 (also Ex. DW1/3) addressed by plaintiff to [email protected], one of the dealers of defendant company in Goa is purportedly to instigate said dealer to go against defendant company. Sending of such email by plaintiff was considered by the defendant company to be prejudicial to the interest of defendant company and a breach in terms of Clause 18.1.2 of afore elicited dealership agreement, leading to termination of the agreement. Following is the text of Ex. D8 (also Ex. DW1/3) :
"Dear Savio, Plz. go through the appended mails. This clearly seems that Ricoh no way interested in resolving issues of the Dealer Or RIL Pune wants to hide the issues in front of Rajiv Bhatia (H.O.Person). What is the meaning of MEETING? How can any delear focus on business? Most our time is wasting in fighting with Sales Managers, Accounts Manager, Service Managers, Spares Part Dept. Since last year we feel those peoples are Kings of their own kingdom. They do not feel sorry even though one of the Performing delear Mr. Mahendra surrendered the delearship.
Thnx.
Regards, Deepak Patil."
CS - 516/17 M/s. Bhagirath Communications Vs. Ricoh India Ltd. & Ors. page 15 of 21 Afore elicited text makes it implicit clear of plaintiff instigating other dealers of defendant to go against the defendant and which was prejudicial to the interest of defendant company, making the premise for defendant to terminate the agreement in terms of Clause 18.1.2 of the dealership agreement.
21. Plaintiff was required to remove defects in providing after sales services. Accordingly, plaintiff was enjoined to remove defects and address complaints of customers. Per contra, plaintiff did not remove defect nor addressed complaint of customer namely Bhartiya Vidhya Peeth and instead provided flimsy excuse of defect being outside the scope of warranty policy and even refused to service the customer. Resultantly, defendant had to intervene and address the complaint of customer Bhartiya Vidhya Peeth. Same is borne out from the documents of defendant including Ex. D9 (also Ex. DW1/4), Ex. D10 (also Ex. DW1/5), Ex. D11(also Ex. DW1/6), Ex. D12 (also Ex. DW1/7). Breach of Clause 18.1.3 of the dealership agreement by the plaintiff is proved on record which entitled defendant to terminate the agreement forthwith. The defendants had notified the drastic changes in meeting the sales target and absence of cooperation with the Channel Manager towards preparing a business plan. In the plaint it was the averment of CS - 516/17 M/s. Bhagirath Communications Vs. Ricoh India Ltd. & Ors. page 16 of 21 plaintiff inter alia that the reason for Nil colour sales was owing to his area of operation being a 'C' class small city. Own admission of plaintiff is in plaint for unable to meet the sales target for colour multifunction printers. Plaintiff never mentioned earlier to defendant that it would be unable to reach its target owing to the city being small. Failure of plaintiff to meet the sales target was the available ground invoked by defendant under Clause 18.1.4 of dealership agreement for termination of agreement.
22. In view of the forgoing discussions, plaintiff has failed to prove by preponderance of probabilities that termination of dealership agreement of plaintiff by defendant no.1 was wrongful. Issue no.1 is decided against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant.
Findings on Issues no. 2 & 4
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to Rs. 75,83,700/ as claimed in the suit? OPP.
4. Whether the defendant no.1 is entitled to the counter claim amount of Rs. 5,238/ alongwith pendent lite and future interest? OPD.
23. Since both these issues are interconnected, so they are being CS - 516/17 M/s. Bhagirath Communications Vs. Ricoh India Ltd. & Ors. page 17 of 21 taken up together for the findings.
24. In affidavit Ex. PW1/A, PW1 also relied upon the audited balance of the plaintiff for Assessment Years 20072008, 2008 2009 and 20092010 as Ex. R1(colly). These were for periods from 01.04.2006 to 31.03.2009 i.e. for Financial Years 200607, 200708 and 200809. Evidence on record is shorn of any fact proved by cogent evidence with respect to any loss or profit, loss of future business, loss of 4C income, expenses for salaries to Service Engineers, Sales Executives, office staff, expenses for office rent, computer, Demo copier machine, two wheelers, furniture and lights, stationary including Letter heads, envelopes, billing invoices, stickers, delivery challans, visiting cards, leaflets etc. having been incurred by plaintiff in the period after termination of dealership of plaintiff by defendant company vide letter dated 19.11.2009. Claim of plaintiff excepting for admitted deposited sum of security amount of Rs. 50,000/ remains not proved.
25. Defendant company claimed (i) Rs. 10,224/ towards MIF Support Charges for quarter ending June 2009 vide debit note dated 15.07.2009 Ex. D14 (also Ex. DW1/9); (ii) Rs. 615/ towards Dealer Support charges vide debit note dated 29.07.2009 Ex. D15 (also Ex. DW1/10); (iii) Rs. 300/ towards CS - 516/17 M/s. Bhagirath Communications Vs. Ricoh India Ltd. & Ors. page 18 of 21 Freight on Emertel vide debit note dated 30.08.2009 Ex. D16 (also Ex. DW1/11); (iv) Rs. 10,291/ towards MIF support Charges for quarter from July 2009 to September 2009 vide debit note dated 15.10.2009 Ex. D18 (also Ex. DW1/13); (v) Rs. 17,708/ of invoice of defendant company dated 31.10.2009 Ex. D11 (also Ex. DW1/6), which remained unpaid by plaintiff being sum of part replaced for rendering service to Bharti Vidhya Peeth regarding which laches on the part of the plaintiff had been proved by defendant for non rendering of service by plaintiff to Bhartiya Vidhya Peeth. By afore elicited evidence, the defendant has been able to prove to be entitled for said sums from plaintiff totalling Rs. 39,138/.
26. Besides that defendant had laid claim on sum of Rs. 5000/ towards charges for cancellation of training by plaintiff, raised by debit note dated 21.09.2009 Ex. DW1/12. With respect to that on record, the document proved by the plaintiff of prior information of inability of official of plaintiff to undergo training aforesaid is Ex. D30 (also Ex. DW1/27) dated 28.07.2009. Accordingly, the claim of Rs. 5000/ of defendant for charges for cancellation of training entitled to plaintiff stands not proved. Defendant no.1 also laid claim of Rs. 200/ vide debit note Ex. D21 (also Ex. DW1/16) dated 31.12.2009 towards Engineering Support charges which has been proved to CS - 516/17 M/s. Bhagirath Communications Vs. Ricoh India Ltd. & Ors. page 19 of 21 be recoverable from plaintiff.
27. The defendant has also laid claim over sum of Rs. 10,158/ towards MIF support charges for quarter from October 2009 to December 2009 vide debit note Ex. DW1/17 payable by plaintiff. Plaintiff counsel in his arguments had laid stress that after cancellation of the dealer agreement forthwith on 19.11.2009, for any period later thereto, defendant company is not entitled to claim MIF Support charges. Accordingly, for the period from 01.10.2009 to 19.11.2009 i.e. for period of 50 days out of claimed period of 90 days, the defendant company is held entitled for Rs. 5,643/ towards MIF Support Charges for the period from 01.10.2009 to 19.11.2009.
28. In view of the forgoing discussion, the defendant company is held entitled for recovery of Rs. 44,981/ from plaintiff and with regard to the said sum, the defendant was entitled to deduct said sum from security of Rs. 50,000/from the plaintiff with the defendant. Accordingly, plaintiff is held entitled for recovery of Rs. 5,019/ from defendants. Issues no. 2 and 4 are decided accordingly.
Findings on Issue no.3
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled interest @ 15% per annum CS - 516/17 M/s. Bhagirath Communications Vs. Ricoh India Ltd. & Ors. page 20 of 21 on the amount, as claimed in the suit? OPP.
29. Parties have not proved on record any agreed terms of interest for outstanding sums payable by each other. Plaintiff was engaged in business / commercial purposes and the plaintiff company was working for gain. In the fact of the matter, having regard to nature of the commercial transaction between the parties and finding it expedient in the interests of justice, plaintiff is accordingly held entitled for interest @ 12% per annum on sum of Rs. 5,019/ from the date of filing of the suit till realisation from defendant. Issue no.3 is accordingly decided in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant.
Relief
30. In view of my findings with respect to issues no. 2, 3 and 4, the plaintiff is held entitled for recovery of Rs. 5,019/ with interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the suit till realisation alongwith proportionate costs from defendant. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open (GURVINDER PAL SINGH) Court on 11.10.2017. Additional District Judge 01(SE), Saket Courts, New Delhi. (sm) CS - 516/17 M/s. Bhagirath Communications Vs. Ricoh India Ltd. & Ors. page 21 of 21