Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: multifunction printer in Cs - 516/17 vs Ricoh India Limited on 11 October, 2017Matching Fragments
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.
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.