PATNA HIGH COURT
B.P.Jamuar and Ahmad JJ.
Kanak Kumari Sahiba
Versus
Chandan Lall Khattry
Appeal from Original Decree No. 296 of 1947 ;
Decided On : JULY 30, 1953
SALE OF GOODS - BREACH OF WARRANTY - REMEDIES OF BUYER - SPLITTING OF DAMAGES - SEQUENCE OF ACTIONS - MEASURE OF DAMAGES - PENALTY - ADJUSTMENT OF LIABILITIES.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff purchased two mills from the defendants under a contract that included a warranty that the mills would be put in satisfactory working order. The plaintiff paid a deposit of Rs. 10,000 and agreed to pay the balance of Rs. 25,000 when the mills were installed and put in working order. The defendants installed the mills but they did not work satisfactorily. The plaintiff incurred expenses in repairing the mills and purchasing additional parts. She filed a suit for damages of Rs. 24,975. The defendants counterclaimed for the balance of the purchase price, Rs. 25,000.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court found that the defendants had breached the warranty and awarded the plaintiff damages of Rs. 20,730. The court also held that the clause in the contract providing for forfeiture of the balance of the purchase price was a penalty and could not be enforced. The defendants appealed against the award of damages and the plaintiff cross-appealed against the dismissal of her claim for the full amount of damages.
Issues: 1. Whether the clause in the contract providing for forfeiture of the balance of the purchase price was a penalty? 2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for the breach of warranty? 3. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to split her damages and bring separate actions for general and special damages? 4. What was the measure of damages for the breach of warranty?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The clause in the contract providing for forfeiture of the balance of the purchase price was a penalty and could not be enforced. 2. The plaintiff was entitled to recover damages for the breach of warranty. 3. The plaintiff was entitled to split her damages and bring separate actions for general and special damages. 4. The measure of damages for the breach of warranty was the amount of the plaintiff's actual loss, up to a maximum of Rs. 25,000, the amount stipulated in the contract as the penalty.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed and the cross-objection was also dismissed. The plaintiff was entitled to recover damages of Rs. 20,730 from the defendants, and the defendants were entitled to recover the balance of the purchase price, Rs. 4,270, from the plaintiff.
Ahmad, J.
1. This appeal is by the plaintiff. Mr. Nandlal Untwalia, whose name appears for the respon-dents, has informed us that he has no instruction to oppose the appeal. We have heard. Mr. B. C. De for the appellant.
2. The plaintiff is the wife of the Maharaja Bahadur of Dumraon. She. through her manager, Mr. H. Knight, entered into an agreement with. the two defendants, who are father and son, for the purchase of net-weaving and hosiery machines which had been installed at Barraekpore, Calcutta. The price fixed for the net-weaving machinery was Rs. 60,000.00 and that for the hosiery machinery Rs. 40,000/-, the total being Rs. 1,00,000/-. The agreement for sale was drawn up between the parties on 13-1-1945. Under this agreement, a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 out of the price was to be paid on that very date, and it was so paid. Another sum of Rs. 25,000.00 was to be paid when the sale deed regarding the machinery was completed. This sum was paid on 7-2-1945, when the bale deed was drawn up. A further sum of Rs. 40,000.00 was to be paid when the machines would be despatched to Dumraon, and this took place on 9-2-1945. The balance of Rs. 25,000.00 was payable when the machines were installed at Dumraon and put in working and running order by the defendants. It was further stipulated that, in case the machines were not put in working order at Dumraon, the machines would be kept by the purchaser; but the balance of Rs. 25,000.00 would not be paid to the sellers and would be forfeited. There was a further stipulation that the purchaser would be further entitled to claim damages from the sellers.
3. The machines reached Dumraon in February, 1945. Both the defendants had gone to Dumraon. By the end of March, 1945, the machines were installed at their proper places. It was, however, found that the hosiery machines did not work at all, while the net-weaving machines were not working satisfactorily, and could not produce marketable goods. Defendant No. 1 left Dumraon, promising to return with certain parts of the machines which were wanting, and he took with himself two chain machines and one sock machine for certain repairs. Defendant No. 1 had, however, left his son, defendant No. 2, at Dumraon. Thereafter, defendant No. I never returned to Dumraon, although letters and telegrams were sent to him by defendant No. 2 as also by the plaintiffs men. When, however, a registered notice was sent on behalf of the plaintiff in August, 1945. the defendant claimed to have put everything in proper condition, and demanded the balance of Rs. 25,000.00 which was the unpaid portion of the purchase money. It is the case of the plaintiff that she had to carry out the necessary repairs and had to purchase the necessary parts in order to put the machines going.
4. The suit was filed on 20-12-1945, and, in the suit, the plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 24,975/- as damages. In para. 13 of the plaint, it was stated :
"That Rs. 25,000 (rupees twenty-five thousand), the unpaid portion of the consideration money of one lac of the sale deed, the plaintiff is absolved from the payment of the same and is not liable to the defendants for it on account of the breach of the agreement by the defendants as stated above and that the said Net-weaving Mills and Hosiery Mills stand forfeited to the plaintiff to be held and enjoyed by her as an absolute proprietor and for ever."
5. In defence, the defendants filed a written statement, ana, in last paragraph, they made the following claim:
"It is, therefore, prayed that your honour may be pleased to dismiss the suit with costs and pass a decree in favour of the defendants in respect, of the .. counter-claim, namely, Rs. 25,0007-, besides interest at one per cent, on account of balance of unpaid price for the machines and machineries supplied amounting to Rs. 2,063-5-0 (rupees two thousand and sixty-three and five annas) and future interest till realisation and also Rs. 1,005 on account of costs incurred for the plaintif
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.