Back
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, MUNNURI LAXMAN
Saurabh Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Hasti Petro Chemical and Shipping Ltd. , through its Director Ruchirparakh – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Munnuri Laxman, J.) :
1) The challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 22.08.2023 passed by Commercial Court No.1, Jodhpur Metropolitan on the file of Civil Original Suit No.41/2018 (NCV No.41/2018), wherein and whereby the claim for recovery of damages was partly allowed granting an amount of Rs.10,50,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from 13.08.2010 till the date of realisation.
2) The present appellants are the defendants and the respondent is the plaintiff in the original suit. For convenience, rank of the parties as referred in the suit is maintained.
3) The sum and substance of the case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is engaged in the business of transport, warehousing, fuel station, container repair, yard and the business is conducted through its offices at Jodhpur and Anand (Gujrat). To meet his business requirements, he placed purchase order for two Forklift trucks with the defendants’ Company. The defendants’ Company supplied two Forklift Trucks on 16.08.2010. On 18.08.2010, the plaintiff informed the defendants about malfunction of Forklift in its ordinary course of working as they were unable to stuff and de-stuff the paper r
(1) Commercial Use Admission – A categorical admission of commercial use in the pleadings creates a jurisdictional hurdle. The Commission reaffirmed that whether a party is a “Consumer” must be decid....
Revisional Jurisdiction of National Commission is extremely limited, it should be exercised only within parameters specified in provision.
Consumer protection laws require manufacturers and dealers to meet reasonable performance expectations for vehicles, especially luxury models, when persistent defects arise.
The court affirmed that the vehicle was legally repossessed due to the complainant's failure to repay the loan, with no proven defects in the vehicle.
Well reasoned orders – Both the State Commission and District Forum have issued well-reasoned orders, duly and appropriately addressing the issues raised by Petitioner.
(1) Automobile – Manufacturing defect – Mere fact that truck was purchased for earning livelihood through self-employment does not exclude complainant from definition of ‘consumer’.(2) Seizure of veh....
A complainant must prove manufacturing defect in a vehicle by adequate and admissible evidence supported by an expert opinion to claim total replacement or refund of the purchase price.
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
