SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 70120

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mrs.Justice K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
L.KAMAL BATCHA(DIED) – Appellant
Versus
FUJI FILMS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED – Respondent



IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Reserved on 22.09.2025 Pronounced on 28.11.2025 Coram:

The Honourable Mrs. Justice K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI Second Appeal No.206 of 2023 L.Kamal Batcha (died)

Proprietor National Pharma Hospital & Research Institute, Thanjavur.

1.Mohammed Sara

2.Ayesha Raja

3.Najima

4.Dr.K.Mujibur Rahman M.D.

5.Dr.Mohammed Ali M.D ..Appellants versus

1.Fuji Films India Private Limited, A Company registered under the Companies Act and represented by its Senior Executive, Customer Support, Medical division.

2.M/s.Ultra Globe Systems, Represented by its Maintenance Manager.

.. Respondents Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 CPC, praying to set aside the decree and judgement dated 07.09.2022 made in A.S.No.35 of 2021 on the file of the learned XV Additional Judgment Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2019 made in O.S. No. 4893 of 2017 on the file of the learned XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

For Appellants : Mr.J.Raja Kalifulla, Senior Advocate for Mr. J.Jayendrakrishnan For Respondents : Ms.Thangavadhana Balakrishnan for R1 and R2 JUDGMENT The above second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree dated

07.09.2022 made in A.S.No.35 of 2021 on the file of the learned XV Additional Judgment Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 11.12.2019 made in O.S. No. 4893 of 2017 on the file of the learned XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

2.The appellants are the legal heirs of the deceased original plaintiff.

The suit in O.S.No.4893 of 2017 was filed by the original plaintiff Kamal Batcha before XIV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai.

3.According to the deceased plaintiff, he was running a super speciality hospital in Tanjavur, under the name and style M/s.National Pharma Hospital and Research Institute, offering Superior health services to the public. In the course of his business an order was placed for purchasing one Fuji-X-ray CR machine model No.CR-IR 392 on 07.10.2014 vide purchase order NPH-R1-2014-2015 dated 07.10.2014, in pursuant to the 2nd defendant invoice in their reference UGS/NDK/FUJI/NPH & RI dated 07.10.2014 for Rs.5,25,000/-. The X-ray machine was installed by the 2nd defendant in the hospital premises on 28.10.2014. At the time of supplying the machine the 2nd defendant in the supporting documents had stated that the machine is covered by full warranty for a period of two years from the date of installation. The plaintiff has paid the entire cost for the X-ray machine and the accessories. While so, the X-ray machine suffered a snag and did not work from 28.10.2015. In view of the warranty clause, the plaintiff sent an e-mail on 29.10.2015 and a letter to the defendants calling them to attend the defect. The 2nd defendant's technical staff from M/s.Vivid Health Care inspected the machine on 31.10.2015 and informed the plaintiff that repairs will be carried out immediately after getting the spare parts from their office. While so, the defendants in order to get over their latches forwarded email dated 04.11.2015 stating that the system failed because of electrical surges due to lightning and as per defendant's policy, the repair and replacement will not come under the warranty clause. But, there is no such reference in the defendant's field service report dated 31.10.2015 nor was there any electrical surges as alleged. After 31.10.2015 there was no inspection, either by the defendant's service personal or by any expert electrician. Without any expert opinion the defendant's have arrived at the said conclusion. The entire hospital premises is installed with lightning arrestor system and surge protector and servo stabilizer to protect against any electrical mishap. Hence, the chances of electrical damage due to lightning is completely ruled out. The plaintiff sent a detailed letter to the defendants explaining the above facts. The plaintiff submits that inspite of the plaintif

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top