BYFORD LEASING LTD Vs. S V R RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the Order dated 9.7.1993 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Delhi in Complaint No. C-210/92. By the said Order, the State Commission had directed the Appellant herein to pay an amount of Rs. 83,681/- with interest at 12% p.a. from 3.6.92, the date of the complaint, till recovery of the amount and Rs. 10,000/- as damages within a period of three months together with Rs. 1,500/- as costs.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the Appellant gave an advertisement in the Hindustan Times dated 7.7.91 about their scheme for sale of the reconditioned cars with a six months warranty on the said cars. The Respondent herein purchased a 1986 Premier Padmini Car in response to the said advertisement for a consideration of Rs. 80,916/- by depositing 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. After purchase, the car started giving trouble and had to be taken to the Appellant's workshop for repairs on various dates and lastly, the Complainant delivered the car to the Appellant on January 15, 1992 for repair. After the repairs had been done, the Appellant-Company did not allow him to take delivery of the car unless he paid a sum of Rs. 2,765/-. The Complainant, without prejudice to his legal right, it is alleged, paid the said amount. Even after the repairs, the defects were reported to have persisted. The Complainant thereupon filed a Complaint before the State Commission praying that the Appellant be directed to pay Rs. 1,15,036/- which included the price of the car and repair charges.

(3.) WHILE deciding the case, the State Commission has gone into the question whether the warranty mentioned in the advertisement in the Hindustan Times dated 7.7.91 or the one in the said Daily dated 21.7.91 referred to by the Appellant was applicable, and has held that only the warranty dated 7.7.91 was applicable to the case, keeping in view the fact the complainant had purchased the car on the basis of the said advertisement and paid the full amount for the car to the Appellant Company by 20.7.91 i.e. before the date of the second warranty advertisement. The State Commission has also gone into question whether the said car was at all a reconditioned one as mentioned in the advertisement of 7.7.91 and also in the light of the interpretation of the technical word 'reconditioned' in The Law Lord in Minster Trust Ltd. Traps Tractors Ltd., (1954) 3 All England Reports 136 (at page 144). Although the Complainant had to send the car many times to the Appellant's workshop for repairs and replacements and wrote several letters to them, the car was not made road-worthy. Further, a certificate dated 23.4.92 obtained by the Complainant from the Automobile Association of Upper India (AAUI) showed that the car was an accidental one with rusted body, the differential being defective and its approximate price was Rs. 55,000/-. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the State Commission concluded that the car in dispute cannot be said to be a reconditioned car.