Back
2012 Supreme(Kar) 1160
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Aravind Kumar, J.
Susheela Bai —Appellant
Vs.
M/S. Ganga Electronics and others —Respondent
R.F.A. No. 439 of 2008
Decided on : 08-11-2012
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Manjula K.N. G., Narayana Rao, for the Appellant
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the defendant's admission of taking delivery of the television set and making payments in installments established her liability for the suit claim.
Headnote:
Television Purchase - Recovery Suit - [Negotiable Instruments Act, 1988, Section 138, Limitation Act, 1963, Section 3] - The court discussed the plaintiff's claim for recovery of Rs. 27,011/- with penalty at Rs. 200/- per month and interest, and the defendant's denial of purchasing the television set and agreeing to repay the amount in equated monthly installments. The court examined the evidence and held in favor of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 15,460/- with proportionate cost, current and future interest at 6% per annum on the decretal amount.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 27,011/- with penalty at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month and interest, alleging that the defendant had purchased a television set on credit basis and failed to make regular payments.
Finding of the Court:
The court found in favor of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 15,460/- with proportionate cost, current and future interest at 6% per annum on the decretal amount.
Issues: The issues included whether the defendant purchased the television set on credit basis, whether the defendants failed to clear the amount due, and whether the suit was barred by limitation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendant's admission of taking delivery of the television set and making payments in installments established her liability. The court also rejected the defendant's plea of the suit being barred by limitation.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 10193/1992 by the IV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, was affirmed.
ARAVIND KUMAR, J.—This appeal by 1st defendant is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the IV Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore, dated 17.11.2007 passed in O.S. No. 10193/1992 whereunder the suit has been decreed in part, namely as against a claim for recovery of Rs. 27,011/- with penalty at Rs. 200/- per month and interest came to be decreed for a sum of Rs. 15,460/-with proportionate cost, current and future interest at 6% per annum on the decretal amount.
2. Heard Smt. Manjula K.H., learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. G. Narayana Rao for appellant. Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 are served and unrepresented. Appeal against respondent No. 2 has been dismissed vide order dated 6.11.2012. Parties are referred as per rank in the Trial Court.
3. Plaintiff filed a suit against defendant Nos. 1 to 3 for recovery of sum of Rs. 27,011/- with penalty at the rate of Rs. 200/-per month and interest thereon interalia contending that plaintiff is carrying on the business of sale of Television under the name of M/s. Ganga Electronics, N.R. Road, Bangalore, and defendant No. 1 approached plaintiff for supply of one colour television set of Crompton Greaves make on credit basis and assured plaintiff that she would make payment in 48 equated monthly installments at the rate of Rs. 592/-per month and in the case of a single default she would pay a sum of Rs. 200/- for every defaulting month as penalty. It was further contended that defendant No. 1 offered defendant Nos. 2 and 3 as guarantors and took delivery of the colour television vide delivery challan dated 23.09.1988 bearing No. 93. It was contended that after delivery of the television set defendant No. 1 did not make payments regularly and as on the date of filing the suit a sum of Rs. 8,025/- had been paid and demanded payment of entire amount due and legal notice dated 23.10.1989 came to be issued whereunder a sum of Rs. 27,011/- was demanded. On account of non payment of amount and non compliance of the demand made in the demand notice, plaintiff instituted suit for recovery of said amount in O.S. No. 1193/1992.
4. On issuance of suit summons defendant Nos. 1 and 2 appeared and defendant No. 1 alone filed the written statement. Defendant No. 1 denied taking delivery of colour television as also agreeing to repay the amount in EMI @ Rs. 592/- per month. She also denied having offered defendant Nos. 2 and 3 as guarantors. However, in the written statement it was contended by defendant No. 1 that she was desirous of purchasing a television and as such she had approached plaintiff and had assured plaintiff that she would make payment every month depending upon her financial position and as situation permits. Based on the said assurance given by plaintiff she claims to have paid a total sum of Rs. 8,787/- on different dates and thereafter paid a sum of Rs. 300/- to plaintiff and took delivery of television set. It was contended that cost of television at the relevant point of time was Rs. 9,000/- and having paid the entire amount she took delivery of television. She also claimed that plaintiff had taken signature of defendant No. 1 on blank papers stating that it was only with regard to delivery of television set and she believed the version of plaintiff and as such she signed all the blank papers. She further contended that plaintiff with an intention to defraud defendant No. 1 and to have a wrongful gain has misused the blank papers signed by defendant No. 1 and has instituted a false suit. On these grounds, she sought for dismissal of the suit.
5. On the basis of pleadings of the parties following issues were framed by trial Court for its adjudication.
“(1) Does the plaintiff proves that the defendant No. 1 purchased T.V. set agreeing to pay its cost in 48 equal installments at the rate of Rs. 592/- and executed the suit documents?
(2) Whether the plaintiff further proves that the defendants 2 and 3 offered themselves as guarantors and signed the suit documents agreei
