The plaintiff failed to prove defects in goods supplied under the Reseller Agreement, resulting in dismissal of the suit and a decree for the defendant's counter-claim for unpaid invoices.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Civil Suit is filed under Order IV Rule 1 of O.S. Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 CPC, praying for a direction to the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.1,81,62,728/- being the principal amount of Rs.1,50,30,923/- payable by the defendant as per para 10 of the plaint and interest thereon at the rate of 15% per annum from 01.07.2007 till 18.11.2008, along with future interest at the rate of 15% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of actual payment

The suit has been filed against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,26,40,648/- towards damages. According to the plaintiff, the goods supplied by the defendant was defective and due to the same, they had suffered damages. The damage claim made by the plaintiff against the defendant comprises of the following:-

2. The plaintiff is engaged in the business of trading in graphic art film, printing plates, plate chemicals, flexo plates and other types of proofing products, which are used in the printing industry. The defendant is in the business of manufacturing the aforesaid products in Plants situated in Europe and United States of America. The defendant had engaged the plaintiff as a reseller/distributor of its products on a principal-to-principal basis ever since 1995, where the plaintiff's scope of work was to establish a market base and identify potential customers for trading the defendant's products. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a formal Reseller Agreement dated 01.04.2006 and as per the terms and conditions of the said agreement, the plaintiff was required to take best efforts to promote and thereafter to sell and trade the products manufactured by the defendant, as a reseller for Southern India (except Kerala). As per the Reseller Agreement dated 01.04.2006, the defendant was supplying the products to the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, the products supplied by the defendant to the plaintiff had suffered from two types of defects, namely, “base fog” and “finger prints”. According to them, the loss suffered by them is owing to direct and proximate consequences of the defective goods supplied by the defendant and therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the suit claim, on account of breach of contract committed by the defendant under the Reseller Agreement dated 01.04.2006.

3. According the plaintiff, the defendant had provided a guarantee under the Reseller Agreement dated 01.04.2006 to supply the products in good and merchantable quality and condition. According to the plaintiff, it was the defendant's responsibility to replace the goods or supply equivalent goods or repair the goods or pay the cost of replacing the goods or acquire equivalent goods or pay the cost of having the goods repaired, in case the goods supplied by them are defective. According to the plaintiff, they were permitted by the defendant to sell the defendant's products in the defendant's original packages. According to them, the packages were received from the defendant in a sealed condition and they were supplied to the plaintiff's customers in the same condition. Therefore, according to the plaintiff, the two types of defects, namely, base fog and finger prints, cannot be due to the plaintiff's mishandling of the goods, and therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the losses suffered by them owing to the supply of defective goods