Warranty obligations are binding, and a sole proprietor cannot evade liability owing to the nature of the business structure.

JUDGMENT :

K.MURALI SHANKAR, J.

The Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.44 of 2009 dated 27.10.2010 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Thirumangalam (Camp Court), reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.435 of 2004 dated 18.03.2008 on the file of the Court of District Munsif, Thirumangalam.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff. The plaintiff Company filed a suit for recovery of sum of Rs.92,040/- with interest and costs.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their status / ranking in the trial Court.

4. The case of the plaintiff, in short, is as follows:

(a) The plaintiff Company is a duly registered Company under the provisions of the Companies Act and is one of the leading textile mills. The defendant as network consultant gave quotation on 18.11.1999 to the plaintiff for five items and the plaintiff, accepting the quotation, placed purchase order for the network components for the total cost of Rs.1,43,955/-. After supply of items 1 to 5, the fourth item Link Sys Make Uplink Facility 3 switches were not functional and hence, the defendant removed the said switches and expressed his inability to supply the fourth item Link Sys Switches and suggested equivalent product viz., Digital X Switches. The defendant, after visiting the plaintiff Company premises and inspecting the network system of the plaintiff Company, sent quotation / offer letter dated 19.04.2000 that each switch is priced at Rs.30,680/- and three switches will cost Rs.92,040/-. The plaintiff accepted the offer and hence, the defendant installed the said three switches on 09.06.2000. The plaintiff had sent a sum of Rs.92,040/- by cheque dated 11.07.2000 favouring the defendant. One of the important conditions is the warranty condition for the switches for five years and a warranty letter was given by the defendant for a period of five years.

(b) After installation of the switches, the said switches were also not functioning properly and hence, the plaintiff had to often make phone calls for proper required functioning. Thereafter, the switches were at major fault and hence, after making telephone calls, the defendant came and removed one switch on 18.09.2001 and removed another two switches on 21.09.2001 by substituting hubs in the place of switches. The standby hubs were very slow and not equivalent to the switches ordered and they were also faulty. The plaintiff demanded and insisted for replacement of the entire unit or making the switches fit with required capacity for the network. The defendant, after taking long time, sent a letter to the plaintiff on 12.10.2001 and informed that service charges are Rs.1,500/- for each switches and asked the plaintiff to pay the same for further action in the matter. The plaintiff was surprised to receive such a letter demanding service charges when there is replacement warranty and service warranty for a period of five years. Though the plaintiff was reminded about the warranty condition, there was no response.

(c) The defendant sent a letter dated 21.12.2001 accepting the delay and offered three switches at Rs.21,000/- per switch to settle the issue. Since the letter is against the terms of warranty and the defendant has to replace the switches or service the switches, he has no right to demand either service charges or price for new switches. Hence,