Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
GAURANG KANTH
DD Motors – Appellant
Versus
Shyamji Shrivastva – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts surrounding the vehicle purchase and damages (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 2. analysis of trial court's findings on claims (Para 12 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 3. appellant's arguments against the trial court ruling (Para 14 , 15) |
| 4. conclusion regarding damages and interest award (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 5. dismissal of appeal with no order as to costs (Para 25 , 26) |
JUDGMENT
Gaurang Kanth, J. (Oral)
CM APPL. 29464/2022 (Exemption)
1. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The application stands disposed off.
CM APPL. 29465/2022 (condonation of delay of 559 days in refiling the appeal)
3. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and the delay of 559 days in refiling the appeal is condoned.
4. The application stands disposed off.
RFA 279/2022 & CM APPL. 29463/2022 (stay)
5. None appeared on behalf of the respondent despite advance service of appeal to the respondent.
6. The present appeal is arising from the judgment dated 28.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-06, West District Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in CS No. 11601/16 titled as Shyamji Srivastava vs. M/s. D. D. Motors ("impugned judgment").
The failure of a company to fulfill contractual obligations, including the provision of necessary documentation, justifies recovery of damages for losses incurred by the consumer.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
