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.

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"). By the said impugned judgment, the Trial Court had partly decreed the suit filed by the respondent herein (original plaintiff).

The facts which are relevant for consideration of the present appeal are as follows:

7. The respondent herein filed a suit against the appellant for recovery of damages to the tune of Rs.4,05,659/- along with pendente lite interest before the learned Trial Court. It is the case of the respondent that he purchased a Maruti EECO CNG 5-Seater ("said vehicle") from the appellant based on an advertisement issued in the Hindustan Times dated 25.12.2010 for sale of Economy Radio Taxi. Based on the advertisement he deposited a sum of Rs.4,28,890/- with the appellant towards the cost of the said vehicle including Rs.17,659/- towards the registration charges. However, despite the receipt of the amount towards the registration charges, the appellant failed to deposit the complete registration charges with the statutory authorities and obtain the registration certificate of the said vehicle. Due to the omission of the appellant, the respondent was challaned and was made to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/- to the concerned Traffic Court. He also spent Rs.1,000/- towards legal fee. Subsequently, the respondent deposited the full fee towards registration of the said vehicle with the statutory authorities to obtain the registration certificate along with the vehicle permit for running the vehicle in the National Capital Region.

8. The respondent alleges that he suffered financial losses on the following counts:

(i) Rs.3,52,500/- @ Rs.1500/- per day as his daily earning on account of failure to ply the vehicle on the road from 22.07.2011 till 11.03.2012;

(ii) Rs.4,000/- towards fine and fee paid to advocate;

(iii) Rs.17,659/- towards excess payment made to the appellant for the registration purpose;

(iv) Rs.10,000/- being vehicle discount offered by the appellant; and

(v) Rs.8000/- being refund of excise claim received by the appellant in pursuance of the Central excise notification no. 64/2003- Central Excise.

9. The respondent filed a Consumer Complaint No. 134/12 under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act,1986 before the District Consumer Forum, Sheikh Sarai, New Delhi. The consumer complaint was dismissed by the Consumer Forum vide order dated 25.02.2014 holding that the respondent herein is not a consumer. Subsequently, the respondent filed the suit for recovery of damages (from which the present appeal emanates) against the appellant.

10. The appellant filed a written statement and raised objections vis-a'-vis maintainability of the said suit. The appellant alleged that the respondent has approached the learned Trial Court with unclean hands by concealing material facts. According to the appellant, the respondent filed a Consumer