CFA/105/2025 of MAMRAJ PRAJAPAT S/O SHRI GOPAL PRAJAPAT Vs M/S PREM MOTORS PRIVATE LIMITED on 20 July 2026

1. Appeal herein is directed against Judgment and Decree dated 23.10.2024 passed by the learned Commercial Court, vide which money recovery suit filed by the respondent was allowed and appellant was directed to pay sum of Rs.7,82,022/-.

2. Heard and perused the case file.

3. At the outset, a caveat by us. This appeal is being decided on the basis of the very facts and evidence relied upon by the learned Commercial Court itself, taken at their face value. Basis thereof, at the very threshold, we are constrained to observe that, even on that assumption, the impugned judgment and decree cannot stand. The learned Commercial Court has not merely erred; it has completely misdirected itself, ignored the core legal principles governing consent,

(2 of 5) [CFA-105/2025] reasonableness, and fairness, and thereby reached conclusions that are plainly unsustainable. Let us see how.

4. Brief facts first. The respondent-plaintiff claimed recovery of ₹6,21,741/- on the assertion that the appellant-defendant had entrusted his Maruti Wagon-R bearing Registration No. RJ-02-CB-2235 for repairs on 17.03.2016 on which date as per insurance valuation, it’s market value was Rs. 2.5 Lakhs. After completion of repairs on 06.05.2016, the appellant failed to take delivery and pay the charges demanded.

5. The appellant, on the other hand, pleaded that, the vehicle was insured and the repair liability lay with the insurer; the respondent had initially estimated the repairs at only ₹60,000– 70,000; the respondent thereafter, without obtaining informed consent, unilaterally raised the bill to ₹2,32,011/-; the respondent altered the chassis during the course of repairs, thereby jeopardizing the appellant’s rights; and the appellant had already approached the Consumer Forum on the same dispute.

6. The learned Commercial Court nonetheless decreed a sum of ₹5,50,011/- towards repair charges and parking charges, apart from interest at 7% per annum on the repair amount.

7. We are of the view that even if the respondent’s case is accepted at its highest, the decree is still indefensible. The entire foundation of the judgment rests on an exaggerated and legally unsound reading of a job card as though it were an open-ended consent to any amount, however inflated, however unexpected, and however unfair. Pertinently, as already noted, insured value of the repaired vehicle is stated to be Rs. 2.5 lakhs (in year 2016) against which money decree of ₹5,50,011/- towards repair charges and parking charges, apart from interest at 7%

(3 of 5) [CFA-105/2025] per annum on the repair amount has been passed against the appellant. Such an approach is plainly erroneous.

8. A job card is not a licence for arbitrary escalation. It cannot be stretched into a blanket authority permitting the respondent to first enhance the charges at will and then fasten the appellant with the burden after the repairs were already completed. Consent in law must be informed, conscious, and specific. A signature obtained at the time of entrustment cannot be converted into surrender of all future objection.

9. What makes the matter worse is that the respondent’s own case shows that the appellant was told of the actual amount only after the work had been done. That is not consent; that is pressure. That is not a fair commercial arrangement; that is an attempt to create a fait accompli and then force payment by retaining the vehicle.

10. The award of parking charges of ₹3,18,000/- is even more disconcerting. It is plainly punitive, wholly disproportionate, and unconscionable. The respondent, while sitting in possession of the vehicle, cannot be allowed to let charges run like a meter and then use its own possession as a weapon against the owner. A dominant party cannot compound its own advantage into an oppressive monetary claim.

11. The impugned decree thus rewards the very conduct of the respondent company that ought to have been scrutinized with the greatest caution. A party cannot keep another’s vehicle, inflate the liability, and then seek judicial approval for the resulting burden as though equity were on its side. The learned Commercial Court ought to have seen that the claim had crossed the line from compensation into coercion.

12. The pendency of consumer proceedings instituted by the appellant was also brushed aside too lightly by the learned commercial court,

(4 of 5) [CFA-105/2025] despite the fact that the same controversy regarding liability and alleged deficiency in service was already alive before another competent forum.

13. During the appellate proceedings before us, the representatives of the respondent company were directed to appear in person. On interaction, their conduct was found to be highly unbecoming and insensitive to the grievance of the appellant. Not a satisfactory explanation was offered for the high-handed manner in which the appellant was dealt with. Their demeanor only reinforces our impression that the respondent approached the matter not as a service provider acting fairly, but as a dominant party seeking to impose its will upon the helpless vehicle owner.

14. Such a conduct cannot be countenanced. For, it speaks volumes about the manner in which the dispute was handled and hardly advances the case of the respondent to portray itself as a genuine claimant merely seeking legitimate dues.

15. As an upshot, we are constrained to hold that there was no valid and informed consent for the enhanced repair charges; and the parking charges are oppressive, excessive, and legally unsustainable. The learned Commercial Court thus completely misdirected itself in law and on facts. The impugned decree is the product of a distorted appreciation of the evidence and cannot be allowed to stand.

16. Resultantly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 23.10.2024 passed by the learned Commercial Court are hereby set aside.

(5 of 5) [CFA-105/2025]

17. However, to do complete justice between the parties and to end this prolonged dispute and to balance the equities, it is directed as below :- (a). the respondent shall be entitled to retain possession of the vehicle and may sell or keep for recovery of legitimate dues, if any; (b). the appellant shall be paid a consolidated sum of ₹2,50,000/- by the respondent company in full and final settlement of the dispute including cost of the litigation which he had to undergo for no fault of his. Said amount be paid within 30 days of the instant order being uploaded on the website of this court, failing which it shall accrue interest @9% per annum with effect from the date of the impugned judgment and decree i.e. 23.10.2024.

18. All pending applications stand disposed of. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (ARUN MONGA),J 49/TUSHAR KUMAWAT