AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.M.Subramaniam, J
The appeal suit is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2015 passed by the learned XVIII Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.13654 of 2010.
The appellant and the respondent in the appeal suit are the defendant and the plaintiff respectively in the suit before Trial Court.
The suit was instituted by the respondent/plaintiff for the recovery of money from the appellant/defendant.
It is contended that the respondent/plaintiff is the manufacturers, exporters and importers of surgical instruments, hospital equipments and implants. By an agreement dated 14.10.2005, the respondent/plaintiff had appointed the appellant/ defendant-firm as a Distributor for their products in the Nagpur Region that is Central India.
At the time of agreement, the appellant/defendant had deposited a sum of Rs.2,36,950/- towards interest free caution deposit by way of a demand draft. The appellant/defendant and the respondent/plaintiff were continuing the business and there was a dispute in respect of return of the Surgical Trays as well as the amount dues to the respondent/plaintiff.
On account of the dispute between the parties, the respondent/plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of dues as well as to pay back the value of the Surgical Trays retained by the appellant/ defendant.
The appellant/defendant, in their written statement, denied the averments, by stating that the appellant/defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the respondent/plaintiff. As far as the overdue interest is concerned, the agreement does not contain any such stipulations and therefore, such a levy of overdue interest is not applicable to the appellant/defendant.
The appellant/defendant had furnished 'C' Forms. The termination of the agreement was not intimated to the appellant/ defendant. Setting out the allegations against the respondent/plaintiff, the appellant/defendant denied the allegations in the plaint and contested the suit.
The Trial Court framed the following issues for consideration:-
(i) Whether the suit is not maintainable ?
(ii) Whether the defendant is not liable to pay the suit claim ?
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to suit claim as prayed for with interest ?
(iv) To what relief the plaintiff is entitled ?
On the side of the appellant/defendant before the Trial Court, the partner of the defendant-Company was examined as DW-1 and Exs.B-1 and B-2 were marked as documents and on the side of the respondent/plaintiff, the Director of the plaintiff-Company was examined as PW-1 and Exs.A-1 to A-11 were marked as documents before the Trial Court.
With reference to the issues Nos.(i) to (iii), the Trial Court examined the witnesses, the documents and the evidences produced by the respective parties to the lis and arrived a conclusion that it was clinchingly proved that the appellant/defenant was holding the products mentioned in Ex.B-1. It is the admitted case of both the parties that both parties entered into Distributor Agreement as per Ex.A-2, which was later cancelled. Ex.A-3 invoice also had been admitted by DW-1. It is not denied by the appellant/defendant that they had paid the entire amount for the materials supplied through Ex.A-3 as stated in Ex.A-5.
All these documents were erroneously considered by the Trial Court and the Trial Court arrived a conclusion that the respondent/plaintiff is not entitled for loss of business and reputation from the appellant/defendant. However, the respondent/plaintiff is entitled for the claim of Rs.4,90,550/- regarding the value of Surgical Trays retained by the appellant/defendant, Rs.1,81,365.79 as interest for the overdue amount to be paid by the appellant/defendant, Rs.3,30,257.91 as overdue amount to be paid by the appellant/ defendant and Rs.4,080.47 regarding the excess sales tax amount paid by the respondent/plaintiff for non-submission of 'C' Forms by the appellant/defendant in time. Accordingly, decreed the suit, directing the appellant/defendant to pay a sum of Rs.10,06,254/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realisation with costs, to the respondent/plaintiff.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/defendant raised a ground that the caution deposit paid by them has not been adjusted by the Trial Court and therefore, the Trial Court committed an error in granting the decree. This apart, the other documents produced by the appellant/defendant are also not considered by the Trial Court. In fact, the appellant/defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the respondent/plaintiff.
Disputing the said contentions, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff reiterated that admittedly all the transactions are business transactions, though the caution deposit is not adjusted by the Trial Court, while passing the decree, the interest amount at the rate of 6% fixed is not proper. Being business transaction, the Courts normally grant 18% per annum as interest. Therefore, at this length of time, if any such adjustment is made in this regard, there won't be any difference in the due amount as far as the parties are concerned.
For instance, if the interest amount enhanced in the caution deposit amount of Rs.2,36,950/- is directed to be adjusted, then the total difference will be less and there may not be any gain or loss to both the parties to the lis on hand. Therefore, there is no point in making such adjustments at this length of time and no prejudice would be caused for the parties to the lis, more specifically, to the appellant/defendant.
Under these circumstances, this Court is not inclined to consider these issues as the changes, if at all, made would not cause any prejudice or make any difference on the amount to be granted by the Trial Court in the decree. In view of the fact that both the respective counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant as well as the respondent are fair in making their respective submissions regarding the facts and circumstances, this Court found that the facts in depth need not be gone into and accordingly, arrived a conclusion that there is no infirmity or perversity in respect of the findings of the Trial Court.
Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2014 passed by the learned XVIII Additional District Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.13654 of 2010 is confirmed and consequently, the present appeal suit is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.