EXECUTIVE ENGINEER Vs. MACHINERY PARTS CORPORATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 8.2.2001 passed by the learned Trial Court vide which the suit of the plaintiff was decreed for a sum of Rs. 1,49,8057- with proportionate costs against the defendants. The plaintiff, Sh. Mridul Khemka, Proprietor of M/s. Machinery Parts Corporation filed the suit on the basis that they were dealing with earth moving machinery, diesel engines, diesel generators and also took repairing and reconditioning of the said equipments, the Executive Engineer of HUDA, Division-Ill, Faridabad (defendant No. 1) underthe administrative control of defendant No. 2 keeps various such equipments under their control and responsibility, and that the defendant No.1, for repairing of the bulldozer make DEML Model No. D-50-A 15 which was defective, sought the assistance of the plaintiff which included putting up of parts as may be necessary to make the said bulldozer workworthy. The estimate was submitted vide letter dated 6.2.1993 which was approved for work order vide reference No. 2503 dated 25/2/1993 for a total sum of Rs. 85,982.00. In terms of the pay order the extra payment for extra parts consumed during repairs, which were to cover the offer made by the plaintiff on 20/10/1993 for an additional assembly, were to be paid. In terms of the said order the plaintiff supplied the goods and a bill dated 5/3/1993 amounting to Rs. 1,25,787.00 was submitted to the defendants who made an ad hoc payment of Rs. 40,000.00 and agreed to pay the balance amount shortly. The defendants instead of releasing the balance payment raised objections and demanded return of worn out parts, which were returned and the plaintiff then made a request to the defendants to release the balance money. Having failed to recover the said amount despite their letter dated 27/2/1997, the plaintiff filed the present suit for recovery of the said amount with interest @ 24% per annum.

(2.) This suit was contested by the defendants on various grounds contending inter alia that the Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and decide the present suit. It was stated that the plaintiff was guilty of carelessness and negligence in performing of its duties. Bulldozer had not been repaired properly and vide intimation dated 15/4/1993 the defendants intimated the plaintiff to correct the defects but no steps were taken by the plaintiff to correct the same. Relying upon Clause 7, it was stated that the plaintiff was not entitled to replace the additional parts and, in fact, the plaintiff supplied old parts to the defendants after a lapse of two years. According to the defendants, the total cost of the repair done was only Rs. 39,366.00, and an advance payment of Rs. 40,000.00 was already made by the defendants to the plaintiff at Faridabad. Thus, nothing was due by the defendants to the plaintiff.

(3.) On the pleadings of the parties, the Trial Court vide its order dated 6.8.1998 framed the following issues: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_629_DLT129_2006Html1.htm</FRM>