WESTERN INDIA STATE MOTORS Vs. SOBHAG MAL MEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by M/s. Western India State Motors, Jaipur, who are dealers of Hindustan Ambassador cars manufactured by the second Respondent M/s. Hindustan Motors Ltd., against the decision rendered by the State Commission, Rajasthan, in complaint case No. 13 of 1989 on its file by order dated 25th July, 1989 whereby the appellant has been directed to pay a sum of Rs. 2,000.00 to the first Respondent (Complainant) as compensation for the non-availability of the vehicle for the Complainant's use during the period of ten days when it was said to be under repairs in the workshop of the appellant.

(2.) THE fact of the case, insofar as they are necessary for understanding the contentions raised in this appeal may be shortly stated. The complainant, who is running a taxi service in Jaipur, purchased a diesel Ambassdor car manufactured by the second Respondent from the dealer, the appellant herein on 2.1.1989. At the time of the purchase the manufacturer had given a guarantee to the purchaser in the usual form which was to ensure for a period of twelve months or till the car completed 16000 km of running whichever event occurred earlier. Under the said guarantee, the manufacturer undertook to exchange or repair any part or parts of the car which needed replacement or repair by reason of defective workmanship or defective material except batteries, bulbs, tyres and tubes. It was stated in the guarantee that in respect of paintwork, the manufacturer's obligation would terminate at the end of six months or when the car completed running 8000 km, whichever occurred earlier.

(3.) NO oral evidence was adduced by either of the party before the State Commission and only the document of guarantee and the papers relating to service of the car were produced before it. Although, the State Commission, in is order, has noticed the objection relating to jurisdiction raised by the Opp. Parties, unfortunately, it completely omitted to deal with the said crucial point while deciding the case and proceeded to consider the case on the merits. On the merits, it held that "the materials on record clearly showed that there was no fundamental manufacturing defect in the car and that there was no breach of the conditions of the contract of sale entered into between the complainant and the Opp. Parties and hence the complainant is not entitled to the replacement of the car or the refund of its price/' It was, further found by the State Commission that the documents which have been placed on record amply showed that Opp. Party No. 2, namely, the appellant herein, had adhered to the terms mentioned in the warranty. Dealing with the claim of the complainant for award of Rs. 60,000.00 as compensation on account of 'mental agony and loss'. The State Commission observed "there is absolutely no proof on record in this connection". After its having entered the aforesaid findings one should have expected that the State Commission would dismiss the complaint as devoid of merits. Surprisingly, however, after recording the aforesaid findings, the State Commission proceeded to observe that: