Sabareesh Pillay | School of Law, University of Mumbai Thane Sub-Campus | 9th September 2020
Sonia Tourism Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ranvir Singh And Anr.
FACTS:
Sonia tourism Private Limited is a tourism company which is engaged in tours and travels, it also provides cars to people as a loan. The defendant was given a car on a rental basis for a period of 3 years after which the car would be returned back to the plaintiff company- Sonia Tourism. According to the agreement the defendant had to pay back the amount in monthly installments on a regular basis for a period of 3 years. This contract was accepted and signed by both the parties. Despite sending a Legal Notice, the Defendant did not return the car or pay the loan. Thus, the petitioner had to file a case in the district court of delhi.
RULES:
Under section 7 and 8 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and under section 148 and 153 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
ISSUES:
Whether the defendant was liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff? And whether there was a breach of contract on the part of the defendant?
PETITIONER CONTENTION:
The petitioner contended that there was a breach of contract on the part of the defendant as the defendant did not comply with any of the terms of the agreement and never paid the monthly instalments which were supposed to be paid by him and also never responded to the calls done to him for reminding him to pay the loan. Furthermore, the defendant also failed to return the car after completion of three years. Despite sending a Legal Notice, the Defendant did not return the car or pay the loan.
RESPONDENT CONTENTION:
Even after several Legal Notices were sent to the defendant, he failed to show up at the court for his case, so the court had to proceed Ex-Parte.
OBSERVATIONS BY THE COURT:
The court observed that the petitioner was entitled for the compensation of her loan as the defendant had failed to pay it back despite several legal notices sent to him. The court found that the plaintiff had proved the legal notice sent by him to the defendants asking for delivery of the vehicle; which the plaintiff was duly entitled under section 153 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Also, Suit for recovery of the said goods could be filed under section 7 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. But, the court acknowledged that there were no written documents of the agreement and it was only an oral contract between the two parties.
JUDGMENT:
The court gave the judgement that the defendant should duly return the car to plaintiff immediately. The plaintiff is entitled to receive relief in the form of compensation as the defendant had defaulted on the loan. The plaintiff would also receive an amount as a settlement of the case- the court directed but the claim of obtaining relief in accordance to the damage caused by the defendant was refused as there was no evidence supporting it.
Leave a Reply