M/S Jagota Electronics vs Samsung India Electronics Ltd.
2017 Latest Caselaw 4652 Del

*   IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+   RFA 338/2010

    M/S JAGOTA ELECTRONICS                               ..... Appellant

                       Through:      Mr.K.K. Aggarwal and Ms.Gayatri
                                     Aggarwal, Advocates.

                       versus

    SAMSUNG INDIA ELECTRONICS LTD.                       ..... Respondent

                       Through:      Ms.Meenakshi       Midha,  Mr.Kapil
                                     Midha and         Ms.Aashna Sinha,
                                     Advocates.

    CORAM:
    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.TEJI (ORAL)

                              ORDER

31.08.2017 P.S.TEJI, J.

1. Aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12.03.2010 passed by the Court below dismissing the suit of the plaintiff/appellant for recovery of Rs.19,95,021/-, the present appeal has been filed.

2. Case of the plaintiff/appellant is that despite being established before the Court below, the Court below has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/appellant on issue nos.2 and 3 i.e. entitlement of the plaintiff to the recovery of suit amount and interest.

3. The submissions made by the counsel for the plaintiff/appellant are that the plaintiff/appellant had been working as a dealer of the products of the respondent/defendant in North Delhi and achieved

targets set by the respondent from time to time in sales. The plaintiff used to pay for the goods and also availed cash, other discounts and incentives. Plaintiff had created goodwill for Samsung products. In October 2002, the respondent company had offered sale responsibilities of Projection Televisions to the plaintiff/appellant with the assurance that only the plaintiff/appellant would get the supplies of the same in North Delhi for a certain time period. The plaintiff/appellant started making arrangements for the said supplies and sale of Projection TVs in the rented premises situated opposite the showroom. The plaintiff/appellant had to arrange for an alternative godown on rental basis of Rs.4500/- per month. In the anticipation of a sale rush around Diwali, the plaintiff/appellant placed orders for all electronics items with the respondent company. It was contended that the plaintiff/appellant used to place orders via telephone. On receipt of goods, payments were made to the respondent and discounts were provided to the plaintiff. It was further contended that the orders placed by the plaintiff/appellant were not supplied by the respondent and there was no issuance of any notice with respect to the same. The plaintiff/appellant wrote several letters and illegal stoppage was received. The respondent company wrote a letter dated 24.01.2003 to stop the dealings. The plaintiff was not supplied the goods at the peak Diwali season. Goods could not be supplied to the customers whose orders were booked by the plaintiff/appellant. Without complete and latest variety of goods, stock of Samsung goods worth Rs.11,87,274/- was not saleable. The defective goods have not been repaired/ replaced despite several requests. Ultimately, the supply of goods was

stopped which led to huge losses. A notice dated 16.02.2003 Ex./PW1/37 was served upon the respondent and thereafter final settlement was arrived at between the parties vide Ex.DW1/2.

4. Case of the plaintiff/appellant is that as per settlement Ex.DW1/2 in para 3 it was agreed that a team of the defendant/ respondent company shall visit and look into the grievance of the plaintiff/appellant with regard to articles already lying with the plaintiff/appellant and the inspection team visited the premises of the plaintiff/appellant on 10.12.2003 and prepared the inventory. The total items found lying in the premises of the plaintiff/appellant were 76 in number of the total price of Rs.11,87,274/-. The plaintiff/ appellant suffered losses and he made a claim for the recovery of Rs.19,95,021/-. The pleadings show that all the dealings between the parties have already come to an end on 06.05.2003 and the only act thereafter is inspection report on the basis of which the plaintiff/appellant had made the claim for recovery of Rs.19,95,021/-.

5. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. Apparently, the plaintiff/appellant has not given any legal notice with regard to claim of the defendant/respondent after the inspection report dated 10.12.2003. This report was never acted upon by the plaintiff/appellant and no act subsequent to 10.12.2003 has either been pleaded or proved before the Court. Even for the sake of arguments, Ex.PW1/36 is the document alleged by the plaintiff (though the defendant/respondent denied the document). It shows that 37 items

were made saleable and 5 items were to be repacked to the respondent company. Nothing subsequent to the same has been pleaded or proved. It is pertinent to mention that even in the plaint document Ex.DW1/2 it is neither mentioned nor explained as to how he has allegedly given a sum of Rs.11 lacs shown to be decided nor any articles of the defendant company lying in the possession of the plaintiff/appellant. It leads to the inference that the said facts have neither been pleaded nor proved on record.

7. This Court is of the considered opinion that the plaintiff/ appellant has miserably failed to plead or prove its claim before the Court below as well as before this Court. Accordingly, the judgment passed by the Court below is accordingly upheld. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

8. No order as to costs.

(P.S.TEJI) JUDGE AUGUST 31, 2017 dd