24.07.2025 Accurate Tra ate Trans Heat Pvt. Ltd v. M/s GMP Fi Finishing Mill and another
Case Details
RSA-4124- -2013 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIG HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HA D HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 220 RSA-4124-2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.07.2025 Accurate Tra ate Trans Heat Pvt. Ltd. .…Appellant Versus M/s GMP Fi Finishing Mill and another ....Respondents CORAM: H M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH NIDHI GUPTA Present: - Mr. Kanish Jindal, Advocate wi Mr. Arun Jindal, Advocate for t ate with te for the appellant. Mr. V.K. Sandhir, Advocate for ate for the respondents. NIDHI GUP I GUPTA, J. 1. Defendant No. 1-appellant ha ond ant has filed the present second appeal again l against the judgment and decree dat the ree dated 28.01.2013 passed by the learned Add d Additional District Judge, Amritsar and ritsar, reversing the judgment and decree dated dated 23.08.2011 of the learned C ion), ned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar, whereby the suit or for declaration d filed by the the plaintiffs/res ffs/respondents No. 1 and 2 herein, ha had been dismissed. 2. The parties shall hereinafter be atus fter be referred to as per their status before the l the learned trial Court i.e. the appe o as e appellant is being referred to as ‘defendant N dant No. 1’, whereas the respondents
Legal Reasoning
s as ‘the plaintiffs’ 3. Brief facts of the case are that filed e that the respondent-plaintiffs filed a suit for dec for declaration to the effect that defen dant defendant No. 1 through defendant No. 2 had had intentionally supplied a defec eing defective sample Fabric Dyeing Machine wi ne with complete accessories for a the for a sum of ₹2,55,000/- to the plaintiffs vid ffs vide Invoice No. 029 dated 10. the ed 10.10.2002. On account of the willful defa l default being committed by the nder the defendants, they are under RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-4124- -2013 (O&M) -2- duty/liability iability to replace the defective machin ng a achine above stated by providing a new machin achine of the same trademark and the and of the same value to the plaintiffs. ffs. As such, a decree for manda ught andatory injunction was sought directing the ng the defendants themselves, throu and through their agents, privies and representativ entatives to supply new sample Fa with ple Fabric Dyeing Machine with complete ac ete accessories to the plaintiffs in tive fs in regard to which a defective machine was ne was supplied vide Invoice No. 029 the o. 029 dated 10.10.2002. It was the pleaded case d case of the plaintiffs that part paym een rt payment of ₹1,85,000/- had been made to the to the defendants by way of dema ated demand draft No. 815422 dated 08.10.2002. 2002. It was alleged that the machin s achine supplied by the defendants did not work t work properly and suffers from vario hese various mechanical defects. These facts were b were brought to the notice of defen ated defendants vide intimations dated 26.12.2002 a 2002 and 09.01.2003, but to no avail. suit avail. Accordingly, the present suit was filed by led by the plaintiffs on 10.04.2004. 4. Upon notice, the suit was resis way s resisted by the defendants by way of filing w ing written statement submitting th t of ing therein that part payment of ₹2,16,000/- -had been received from the plai t the e plaintiffs. It was averred that the plaintiffs had ffs had used the machine for the peri the period from 10.10.2002 from the date of purc f purchase and delivery, up to 26.12 the 26.12.2002. It was stated that the plaintiffs ha ffs had concocted the story about mal e as ut malfunctioning of the machine as defendant N ant No. 1 had raised demand for outs e of r outstanding amount to the tune of ₹49,200/- of of the Invoice from the plaintiffs v 2. It ntiffs vide letter dated 21.12.2002. It is only there thereafter that the concocted complai hine mplaint was made that the machine was not func ot functioning properly. As such, dismi , dismissal of the suit was prayed. RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-4124- -2013 (O&M) -3- 5. In replication, the plaintiffs had f the had reiterated the contents of the plaint and de denied the averments made in the in the written statement. 6. On the basis of the pleadings o sues ings of the parties, following issues were framed ramed by the learned trial Court: - “1. Whether the plaintiffs a declaration and mandato OPP. of iffs are entitled to the relief of datory injunction as prayed for? 2. Whether the suit of pla f plaintiffs is not maintainable? OPD. 3. Whether the plaintiffs h locus standi to file the pr nd ffs have no cause of action and e present suit? OPD. 4. Whether the suit of plaint laintiffs is time barred? OPD 5. Whether the suit is not pr of court fee and jurisdicti se ot properly valued for the purpose diction? OPD 6. Whether the suit of plain non-joinder of necessary nd laintiffs is bad for misjoinder and sary parties? OPD nd has no jurisdiction to try and 6A. Whether this Court has PD entertain this suit? OPD 11) (framed on 09.03.2011) 7. Relief.” 7. Upon appraisal and considerati ideration of the pleadings, as also the evidence idence adduced by the parties, the lea he learned trial Court had decided issues No. 1 No. 1, 2 and 6A against the plaintiff laintiffs; issue Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 against the d t the defendants; and accordingly vide ly vide judgment and decree dated 23.08.2011 2011, the suit of the plaintiffs was dism as dismissed. 8. In appeal, the said judgment an ent and decree of the learned trial Court was was reversed, and the learned lo ed lower Appellate Court vide impugned ju ned judgment and decree dated 28.0 28.01.2013, allowed the appeal RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-4124- -2013 (O&M) -4- filed by the y the respondent-plaintiffs. Hence, th nce, the present second appeal by the defendan fendant. 9. It is, inter alia, submitted b tted by learned counsel for the appellant tha ant that in the written statement filed nt filed before the trial court, the defendant N ant No. 1 had specifically denied t nied the averments made by the plaintiffs in ffs in the plaint and had also specific pecifically stated that no defective machine was ne was supplied to them. It is contende ntended that, therefore, in view of the specific d ecific denial by the appellant, it was in was incumbent upon the plaintiffs to prove that ve that the machine had mechanical de ical defect. However, the plaintiffs had produce oduced no Expert Report to show that w that there was any defect in the machine. Th . The plaintiffs have not placed on re d on record any engineering report regarding the ing the alleged malfunctioning of the m of the machine. Even no complaint was made ade by the plaintiffs to the defe e defendants in respect of any malfunction. nction. The plaintiffs have not ex not examined any Engineer or Technical E ical Expert to show that the mach machine is defective in nature, therefore, w ore, without any Technical Expert o pert or Engineer opinion on the working abil ng ability of the machine, it cannot be not be stated that the machine was faulty. No . No Operator, Supervisor or any any other person who actually operated the ed the machine was examined by th by the plaintiffs. Thus, in actual fact, the app e appellants have failed to proved tha ed that the machine was defective. Yet, the lea he learned lower Appellate Court wi rt without any justifiable reason had held that ld that defective machine was supplied upplied. 10. Ld. Counsel further submits its that in fact, the machine had been misuse isused by the respondents in as muc s much as the record reveals that only a samp sample machine had been sent to t nt to the plaintiffs. However, the RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-4124- -2013 (O&M) -5- plaintiffs we ffs were using the same for commercia mercial purpose. Thus, defendants cannot be he t be held liable for the misuse of the m the machine by the plaintiffs. 11. Ld. Counsel contends that the at the machine was supplied vide Invoice No. e No. 029 dated 10.10.2002. The plai he plaintiffs had used the machine for the perio e period from 10.10.2002 from the da the date of purchase and delivery up to 26.12 26.12.2002. The appellant made a ade a demand for payment of ₹49,200/- vide letter dated 21.12.2002. It 02. It is only thereafter that the grievance qu nce qua supply of faulty machine was e was raised by the plaintiff. 12. It is lastly submitted that case o case of the plaintiffs has to stand on its own own legs, and they have to prove t rove their case. However, in the present case t case, the plaintiffs have failed to do to do so. It is accordingly prayed that the judg e judgment and decree dated 28.01.2 8.01.2013, passed by the learned lower Appel Appellate Court be set aside; and the nd the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2011 2011 passed by the learned trial Court Court be restored. 13. Per Contra, learned counsel f nsel for the plaintiff-respondents vehemently ently opposes the submissions of lea of learned counsel for defendant No. 1 and su and submits that plaintiff had paid va aid valuable money consideration for the mach machine received by them. As such s such, it is incorrect for learned counsel for t for the appellants to state that only t only a sample machine was sent. Learned cou ed counsel submits that the machine w chine was supplied with complete accessories, ories, therefore, it was not a sample m ple machine. It is submitted that it is also incor incorrect for the appellant to assert assert that the machine was being misused by ed by the plaintiffs. It is stated that th that there is no basis upon which the appellan pellant can assert misuse of the mac e machine by the plaintiffs as no technical exp cal expert was sent by the defendant to dant to examine the machine. It is RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-4124- -2013 (O&M) -6- submitted th tted that even though letters dated 2 ated 26.12.2002 and 09.01.2003 were written written by the plaintiffs to the appel appellant, yet the matter not got checked by t ed by the defendant and even no reply reply was sent to the said letters. In fact, faul t, faulty goods have been delivered t ered to the plaintiffs. As such, it was incumbe cumbent upon the appellants to repla replace the defective machine by providing ne ing new machines. Further, it is subm
Legal Reasoning
s submitted by learned counsel for respondent dent-plaintiffs that judgment and dec nd decree of the lower Appellate Court suffer suffers from no infirmity, as all that that has been directed therein is that ‘a time time period of six-months is provid rovided to Respondent No. 1 to effect repair pairs of the machine supplied and and in case the same is beyond repair to su o supply a fresh machine’. Accord Accordingly, it is prayed that the present seco t second appeal be dismissed. 14. In rebuttal, learned counsel fo sel for defendant No. 1 submits that the fact fact that sample was sent is eviden evident from the delivery challan Ex. D-2, wh 2, wherein it is categorically mentio mentioned that a sample machine had been se een sent. Learned counsel for defend efendant No. 1 also refers to the statement of of PW-1 Ganesh Behal, Partner artner of plaintiff firm, who had admitted in h ed in his cross-examination that the m t the machine was not got checked from any T any Technical Expert. Therefore, it re, it is prayed that the present second appe appeal may be allowed; and the imp he impugned judgment and decree passed by th by the Lower Appellate Court dated 2 dated 28.01.2013 be dismissed. 15. No other argument has been een raised by learned counsel for the parties. . I have heard learned counsel a nsel and perused the case file in detail. RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-4124- -2013 (O&M) -7- 16. I find merit in the submissio missions advanced on behalf of appellant-de defendant No. 1.The first point point in dispute is whether the machine sup ne supplied by the appellant was a as a sample machine or not. A perusal of th l of the head note of the plaint itself s tself shows that the plaintiffs have themselves a elves averred that ‘… defendant No. 1 o. 1 through defendant no. 2 had nally intentionally supplied ve the defective sample Fabric Dyeing machine…. ….’.From this very admission, it is n, it is clear that the plaintiff was very much a uch aware that a sample machine h hine had been supplied to them. Even a perus a perusal of the delivery order Ex. D x. D-2(available at page 223-A of the trial C ial Court record) shows that ‘SA ‘SAMPLE FABRIC DYEING MACHINE W NE WITH COMPLETE ACCESSOR SORIES AND DYE KITCHEN’ was delivere elivered to the plaintiffs. Thus, it is est t is established on record that only a sample ma ple machine had been supplied by the by the appellant to the plaintiffs; and therefor erefore, the same could not have have been used for commercial purposes. 17. Furthermore, DW-1 Om Parkas Parkash, Manager of the appellant- Firm had cat ad categorically deposed that the plain e plaintiffs had been informed that it was a sam a sample machine which was intende tended only for taking production of samples a ples and said machine was not meant meant for regular commercial use. Despite that te that the plaintiffs had operated th ted the machine improperly and commerciall ercially, as a result of which the mac e machine had developed defects. As such, ca ch, case of defendant No. 1 stands tands proved that only a sample machine has ne has been sent which could not not have been used for heavy machine wor ne work. DW-1 had further deposed th osed that therefore, the defendants RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-4124- -2013 (O&M) -8- could not b not be blamed for the malfunction nctioning of the machine as the plaintiffs the ffs themselves have been mis-utilizing tilizing the machine. 18. It has further been submitted itted by learned counsel for the appellant tha ant that the alleged malfunction of t n of the machine was concocted only in orde n order to avoid making payment o ment of the balance amount due against the t the plaintiffs. DW-1 had deposed posed that malfunctioning of the machine ha ne has been alleged only in order order to avoid payment of the remaining sa ing sale consideration. There is some some merit in this submission on behalf of th of the defendants as, admittedly, t edly, the plaintiffs had used the machine fro ne from the date of purchase and and delivery-10.10.2002, up to 26.12.2002, 2002, during which time no com complaint was made by the respondents. dents. It is only when the appellant m llant made a demand for payment of balance a ance amount of ₹49,200/- vide lette letter dated 21.12.2002, that the plaintiffs im ffs immediately wrote complaint le int letters dated 26.12.2002 and 2003. 09.01.2003. 19. As regards the issue as to wheth whether the machine was actually faulty and d and defective or not, it has been sub en submitted by the plaintiff that despite letter letters written to the appellant, no tec no technician was sent by them to examine the ne the machine and to correct the defe e defects. In fact, it is on this basis that the learn e learned Lower Appellate Court had rt had drawn an adverse inference against the a t the appellant as follows: - “From the above admission ion of Respondent No. 1 M/S Accurate Trans. Heat Pvt. Ltd. Ltd. it is clear that neither they sent any Mechanic to check the the machine nor they have tried to verify as to what is the defec defect with the machine. It is the duty of the manufacturer/suppli pplier to atleast check the cause of malfunctioning of the m e machine regarding which RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-4124- -2013 (O&M) -9- complaint was sent by the ap e applicant-plaintiff within two months. Without checking the m the machine, the Respondent No. 1 cannot claim that appellants lants had misused the machine, therefore, the same developed ped a defect. Just by sitting at Surat, the Respondent No. 1 ca 1 cannot take this plea that the appellant-plaintiffs have used t sed the machine for commercial production and it was mea meant for sample production only…..” 20. Accordingly, on the basis o asis of the above, the learned Additional D onal District Judge had concluded th ded that a defective machine had been supplie upplied to the plaintiffs. However, the er, the abovesaid reasoning of the Lower Appe Appellate Court is patently erroneous oneous and unsustainable as PW-1 Ganesh Beh h Behal, Partner of plaintiff firm, firm, has admitted in his cross- examination nation that ‘We have not got checked t ked the machine in question from any technic hnical expert regarding non-fun functioning of the machine, however, the , the machine was inspected by the the technicians of defendant no. 1. I cannot not tell orally the names of such uch technicians but can tell the same after s ter seeing the record. It is correct rect that earlier we had field a complaint be nt before the District Consumer Dis Disputes Redressal Forum. It is correct that that the same was dismissed by th by the said Forum’. Thus, it is admitted by ed by plaintiff witness himself that ma that machine was examined by the technician o cian of the appellant. Admittedly, no y, no Mechanical Report has been submitted by tted by the plaintiffs to prove that the at the machine was defective and not working orking in proper condition. In this reg his regard, it is also imperative to note that it it is the allegation of the plaintiff laintiffs that the machine was not working pro ng properly. As such, onus was up as upon the plaintiffs to prove malfunction. nction. The onus of this cannot be shi be shifted upon the appellant. It is RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. RSA-4124- -2013 (O&M) -10- established p ished position in law that case the plain e plaintiff has to stand on his own legs. Thus, t hus, there is nothing on record to sho to show and it is not proved that the machine chine was not working properly. 21. It is my view that the abov abovesaid testimony of PW-1 clinches the es the entire issue. From the above tes ve testimony of PW-1 it is proved that the reas e reasoning of the learned Lower App er Appellate Court on the basis of which the s the suit of the plaintiffs has been been decreed is contrary to the evidence on ce on record. It is the own case case of the plaintiffs that no Mechanical nical Report was produced by them; them; and that the machine was also examine xamined by the technicians of appellan pellant-defendant No. 1. Thus, the very basis o asis on which the suit of the plaintiff laintiffs has been decreed is borne out to be inc be incorrect. 22. It has also come on record th ord that the plaintiffs had filed a complaint b aint before the Consumer Dispute R pute Redressal Forum, Amirtsar which had be had been dismissed vide order dated ated 26.03.2004. 23. In view of the facts and submi submissions noted here-in-above, the present esent appeal is allowed. The impugned pugned judgment and decree dated 28.01.2013 2013 is set aside; and the judgment a ment and decree dated 23.08.2011 passed by th by the learned trial Court is upheld an held and restored. 24. Pending application(s) if any als
Decision
any also stand(s) disposed of. 2025 24.07.2025 rishu ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2025.07.28 18:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.