[ghodlur]

Originally Posted by DevilsCry

I didn't see this news on newspapers. I might have missed it but common man would hardly care. Ford will still thrive to sell like this never happened. How can you, a Ford owner, forget Ikon Flair?

I agree this did not make headlines, but still Ford was made accountable for its fault, thats what matters. One such incident surely will make Ford realize that they cant take the Indian customers granted. This fight may inspire a few more and if the ball starts rolling then Ford will have a major embaressment on their hands.
I have become a Ford fanboy very recently.

[carboy]

Such judgements are of no use unless there are punitive damages awarded with it.

The company screws 100 customers - they know less than 5-10% of them are going to take the company to court. They still save money on the other 90% of the customers. It's a calculated risk for the company.

This is the whole reason for punitive damages.

[GTO]

Originally Posted by DevilsCry

I didn't see this news on newspapers.

This particular incident may / may not have (we have thousands of newspapers in this country so can't say for sure); however, such cases frequently make their way into news stories. Whether it does or not, no one knows until the paper goes to print. But the fact is, there is a high probability of it being reported.

[Samridh]

My comments as a lawyer are as under:

1. Indian law (The Indian Contracts Act, 1872) does not permit award of punitive or exemplary damages. As a matter of fact, more evolved jurisdictions like the United Kingdom are averse to the same.

2. Damages on account of 'Mental Agony' are also not awarded in cases of breach of contract/s. Primarily because they are unascertainable by way of a straight jacket formula.

3. So the question arises what sort of compensation is usually awarded by a Court of law in cases where a breach has been perpetrated?? Please be advised, only 'reasonable' damages are awarded. The burden of prooving the extent of actual damage sustained vests with the plaintiff/complianant. Now what is 'reasonable'?? Reasonable has ordinarily been interpretted by Indian Courts as an amount capable of bringing the aggreived party in the same situation, if the alleged breach was not committed. So this means my friends that the plaintiff in this particular case could only prove the actual damage/loss sustained the extent of INR 75,000/-.

Friends its easier to simply blame the Court without understanding the principles of Indian jurisprudence. While having said the above, I am also concious that a common man looks at the situation, in these terms:

5 years of litigation = INR 75,000/- compensation

and finds it unfair. What is fair in modern times is of course debatable. But it is certainly unfair to denigrate the judicial system of this country in generalis.

We have to remember that in this case the Hon'ble Court could not operate with a latent objective of bringing disrepute to any particular party (Ford in this case). But it is directing its Order to re-compense the complainant for 'actual losses/damages' sustained due to defective goods suplied under a contract.

I have more to say on this, but the lesser I say, the better it is.