JUDGMENT :

(S.S. Sundar, J.)

(Prayer : Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 r/w. Order 41 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure against the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2012 in O.S.No.157 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Court, Fast Track Court No.III, Coimbatore.)

(Prayer : Cross Objection filed under Section 96 r/w. Order 41 Rule 22 of Code of Civil Procedure in A.S.No.666 of 2016 against that the judgment and decree dated 27.04.2012 in O.S.No.157 of 2010 on the file of Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.III), Coimbatore, with regard to declining to award interest for the suit claim.)

1. The defendant in the suit in O.S.No.157 of 2010 on the file of the Additional District Court (Fast Track Court No.3), Coimbatore, is the appellant in the above appeal and the plaintiff in the suit is the cross-objector regarding the interest which was disallowed while decreeing the suit. The respondent in this appeal filed the suit in O.S.No.157 of 2010 for recovery of a sum of Rs.58,25,430/- with subsequent interest on Rs.49,79,000/- @ 12% p.a.

2. The respondent/plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and carrying on business in Coimbatore in machine tools required for industrial purposes. On 09.02.2007, the respondent/plaintiff placed an order with the defendant under Order No.345 for supply of 7 Nos. of basic equipment Fine Lift FH 160 with gripper for sheet metal components and 7 Nos. of aluminium rack total overhead trolley with air supply kit and rack. The total value of all the equipments as admitted by the plaintiff is Rs.61,74,000/-.

3. It is the specific case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff made it clear to the defendant even while placing the order that the equipment should lift a minimum of 160 kg of material at all angles. From the case of the plaintiff, it is understood that the plaintiff placed order to purchase equipment which was expected to lift up to 160 kg of material with a capability of tilting at all angles. It is also the case of the plaintiff that the defendant should install the lifts at the site of the plaintiff and the defendant also agreed to deliver and install the lifts in twelve weeks and to give one year warranty.

4. After placing the order, the plaintiff started remitting amounts and it is now on record that a sum of Rs.49,79,000/- was paid by the plaintiff between 22.02.2007 and 04.03.2007 towards cost of equipments. Except a sum of Rs.6,50,000/- paid on 01.11.2007, the entire amount was paid even before the equipments were erected. The defendant delivered the equipments at the site of the plaintiff on 22.08.2007.

5. It is the case of the plaintiff that, at the time of testing the equipments at its place, the equipments supplied by the defendant failed to lift the minimum guaranteed weight. It is then stated that the defendant attempted certain modifications to the equipments and succeeded only in making one equipment to lift up to 90 kg. It is specifically pleaded in the plaint that the other equipments could lift only upto 60 kg. The plaintiff also stated that the defendant guaranteed that all equipments could lift atleast 130 kg, but the defendant failed to accomplish its promise. Thereafter, there were exchange of communications from the plaintiff to defendant and defendant to plaintiff on several occasions. Finally, the defendant demanded further payment before going for further demonstration and testing to satisfy the plaintiff as to the actual capacity of the equipments supplied by the defendant. Thereafter, the plaintiff issued suit notice, not only for return of price paid by the plaintiff but also for compensation @ Rs.4,000/- per day. It is seen that the plaintiff rejected the equipments/goods on the ground that the equipments supplied by the defendant did not confirm to the specifications mentioned in the purchase order and that the equipments supplied to the plaintiff were useless to them. Even in the notice, the plaintiff requested the defendant to t