JITENDER SODHI Vs. V.K.UPPAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff is carrying on the business as a sole proprietor under the name and style of Messrs. Ayush Herbs at Plot No. 25, Phase I, Industrial Area, Nagrota Bagwan in District Kangra, while the Defendant as sole proprietor is carrying on the business under the name and style of Messrs. Veenu Hitech at AG-1/184 C, Vikaspuri, New Delhi.

(2.) The Plaintiff for the purpose of manufacture of his products required a spray drier with the capacity of 50/60 liters feed product with 25% solid contents per hour. The Defendant, who claimed to be an established manufacturer of such spray machine, vide letter dated 19.9.1995 offered to supply the same on the terms and conditions detailed therein. After negotiations between the parties, the Plaintiff vide letter dated 21.9.1995 placed an order with the Defendant for the supply of the spray machine on the terms contained therein. The machine was to be supplied, erected and commissioned by the Defendant at the total cost of Rs. 5,95,000 which was to be paid by the Plaintiff as under:

(3.) A sum of Rs. 2,38,000 representing 40% of the cost of machine was sent by the Plaintiff to the Defendant as advance vide Demand Draft dated 21.9.1995 along with the letter dated 21.9.1995 (Ext. PW1/B) vide which the order for supply of machine was placed by the Plaintiff. A further sum of Rs. 2,67,750 representing 45% of the total cost of the machine was paid to the Defendant by way of a Bank Draft on 14.11.1995 vide letter Ex. PW1/D. A further sum of Rs. 20,000 was paid in cash by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 5,25,750 stood paid to the Defendant by the Plaintiff. Though the spray machine was supplied, erected and installed by the Defendant at the industrial premises of the Plaintiff, the same could not be commissioned by the representatives of the Defendants, on account of some defects therein. The Defendant failed to commission the machine till the date of the suit inspite of repeated requests having been made by the Plaintiff. Due to non-commissioning of the machine the Plaintiff claims to have suffered earnings which have been assessed at Rs. 500 per day.