Partly allowed

Nagar Palika Mandal Gangapur City v. Zamil Ahmed

Rajasthan HC18 May 2017CFA/393/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil first appeal regarding damages for non-allotment of a shop in a Mela, the High Court modified the trial court's award. The appellate court reduced the damages from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 12,500 and the interest rate from 10% to 6% per annum, deeming the original award excessive.

What did the court decide?

Damages reduced to Rs. 12,500 and interest rate reduced to 6% per annum; payment directed within two months.

Nagar Palika Mandal Gangapur City Vs… — Contract and Commercial Disputes | Rajasthan HC (2017)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 393 / 2014

¶3

Nagar Palika Mandal, Gangapur City through Executive Officer, Nagar Palika, Gangapur City.

¶4

----Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

Zamil Ahmed S/o Late Kutabuddin, by caste Musalman, R/o Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur (Raj.)

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

_____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jinesh Jain Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. D.K. Dixit Adv.

¶9

_____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA Judgment

¶10

18/05/2017

¶11

Instant appeal is directed against the order dt. 05.09.2014 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Gangapur City in Civil Suit No.18/2011 whereby the suit was decreed in favour of the respondent-plaintiff.

¶12

After hearing counsel for the parties and perusing the material on record including the evidence recorded, the Trial Court came to a conclusion that the respondent-plaintiff is eligible to damages to the extent of Rs. 25,000/- so also interest @ 10%.

¶13

Counsel for the appellant contends that question of damages does not arise as the respondent was offered a certain shop in a Mela which was being organized by the appellant but the respondent refused to accept the same and prayed for another shop which was not assigned to him and once the allotted shop was not accepted, question of damages does not arise.

¶14

Counsel for the appellant submits that the respondent could not press for allotting the particular shop and occasion does not arise to allow the said damages as the appellant was not obliged to even allot particular shop in the Mela. Counsel also submits that

¶15

(2 of 3)

¶16

[CFA-393/2014]

¶17

the shops were allotted on the principle of first come first serve basis and even the claim of the respondent was not well reasoned. Alternatively, he contends that the amount allowed at Rs.25,000/is highly excessive or unreasonable and deserves to be reduced to a nominal figure. Counsel also submits that even there was no prayer to grant interest and accordingly prays that interest cannot be granted.

¶18

Per-contra, ld. counsel for the respondent-plaintiff submits that the loss suffered by the respondent-plaintiff was almost Rs.1,20,000/- and all details and evidence were also placed on record but the Trial Court has allowed much lower amount which cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable and the respondent-plaintiff had certainly knowing fully well that a shop would be allotted, he purchased toys for being sold in the Mela which was being organized by the appellant.

¶19

Thus, counsel submits that the amount so awarded deserves to be upheld. Counsel also contends that interest is automatic. It is not that 10% has been allowed and two rates of interest are there. He thus supported the order of the Trial Court.

¶20

I have considered the arguments advanced by the Counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶21

Taking into consideration the case where the respondent has suffered a loss on account of non allotment of shop but it is also a fact that there is no right of the respondent for being allotted a shop, particularly when the claim of the appellant is that it was to be allotted on first come first served basis. Nevertheless, the material available on record shows that the respondent-plaintiff

¶22

(3 of 3)

¶23

[CFA-393/2014]

¶24

had purchased toys for being sold in the shop to be allotted in the Mela which was being organized by the appellant and evidence has been placed and certainly loss has been suffered on account of non allotment. Therefore, in my view, the damages have been found rightly to be allowed by the Trial Court but in my view, the losses/damages allowed by the Trial Court appears to be on the excessive side and in my view, taking into consideration the overall material available on record, the respondent is equally liable, in my view, it would be fair and reasonable to award damages to the extent of Rs.12,500/- instead of Rs.25,000/-.

¶25

Accordingly, the order is modified and the respondentplaintiff is held entitled to recover the amount of Rs.12,500/(Twelve Thousand Five Hundred). In my view, the interest is also correctly awarded by the Trial Court but its rate is towards higher side and it is accordingly reduced @ 6% only from the date of institution of the suit, till the amount is actually paid. Let the amount as aforesaid be paid within a period of two months.

¶26

With these directions/observations, the present appeal is partly allowed & disposed off.

¶27

(JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA)J.

¶28

S.Kumawat, Jr. P.A.

Nagar Palika Mandal Gangapur City v. Zamil Ahmed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nagar Palika Mandal Gangapur City v. Zamil Ahmed

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kamlesh Kumar Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp and Anr.

Gyarsi Lal Vs State Pub Health an Engg Ors.

Phool Chand Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Shobhit Agarwal Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr.

Sujeet Singh and Anr. Vs State of Rajasthan through Pp

Kishor Meel Vs State of Rajasthan through P P