S V R RAO Vs. BYFORD LEASING LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Briefly the facts are that the respondent gave an advertisement in the Hindustan Times dated 7.7.91 about the scheme for sale of the reconditioned cars with a six months warranty which reads as follows : " We give six months warranty on cars reconditioned by "us. " the complainant, on 14.7.91, purchased a 1986 Premier Padmini car in view of the said advertisement for a consideration of Rs.80,916/-. After purchase it started giving trouble and had to be taken to the workshop of the respondent for necessary repairs. He visited the respondent's workshop on various dates. Lastly he delivered the car to the respondent on 15.1.92 for repair. After the repair had been done by the respondent they did not allow him to take delivery of the car unless he paid a sum of Rs.2,765/-. He, without any prejudice to his legal right, it is alleged, paid the amount of Rs.2,765/-; but inspite of that the defects continued. Consequently, he filed the present complaint praying that the respondent be directed to pay Rs.1,15,036/- which included Rs.80,916/-, the price of the car and Rs.2,745/-, the repair charges.

(2.) The complaint has been contested by the respondent, who have inter-alia pleaded that the complaint is not maintainable before the Commission as the complainant has committed breach of contract for which the remedy lies in the Civil Court. It is pleaded that the car was examined by the complainant before purchase and it was found by him to be satisfactory. Regarding the terms of warranty, it is pleaded that the terms of warranty dated 21.7.91 were within the knowledge of the respondent and the jobs which were covered by the warranty were duly executed by the respondent. The car, it is alleged, suffered the defects on account of poor maintenance by the complainant. It is pleaded that the warranty given to the complainant was as follows : -" We give six months warranty on cars reconditioned by us. Our warranty terms cover all sub assemblies replaced by us as well as labour. "

(3.) The first question that arises for determination is, whether the warranty dated 7.7.91 or the warranty dated 21.7.91 is applicable to the present case. The warranty dated 7.7.91 covers all defects appearing in the car within a period of six months, whereas the warranty dated 21.7.91 covers defects regarding assemblies replaced by the respondent as well as the labour. Thus there is much difference between the first warranty and the second warranty. The complainant attracted by the 1st warranty given on 7.7.91, decided to purchase the car and deposited a part of the payment namely Rs.27,916/- on 14.7.91 and the balance amount of Rs.53,000/-on 20.7.91. Thus in all he paid an amount of Rs.80,916/-, the price of car before 21.7.91. As soon as the amount was deposited the contract was complete and the complainant was entitled to the benefit of the warranty as given on 7.7.91. In Black's Law Dictionary 5th Edition (1979 Edition) at page 1423 the word 'warranty' has been defined as follows : - " A warranty is a Statement or representation made by the seller, contemporaneously with and as part of the contract of sale, though collateral to the object of sale, having reference to the character, quality of the goods and by which the seller promises or undertakes to insure that certain facts are or shall be as he then represents them. . . It is a statement of fact, respecting the quality or character of the goods sold, made by the seller to induce the sale and relied on by the buyer. "