JUDGEMENT
V.Balakrishna Eradi, j. -
(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.
In the month of March, 1989, the car seems to have developed certain problems and the complainant took it to the workshop of the appellant where it was put into good running condition to the satisfaction of the complainant after effecting certain repairs. Free servicing had been done on two prior occasions when some minor problems were set right, in accordance with the terms of the guarantee. It was on 7.3.1989 that the complainant took the car to the workshop of the second respondent stating that the oil pressure was low and that in addition there were certain other problems also with the car. The car was examined by the mechanics. It was found that the rings and the engine bush had to be replaced after removal and opening of the engine. These works were carried out to the satisfaction of the complainant who took delivery of the car on 13.3.1989 (12th March being Sunday) at 9.30 in the morning, after certifying in writing that he was fully satisfied about the repairs effected to the car. Thereafter, on 1.4.1989, the complainant approached the State Commission, Rajasthan with a complaint petition alleging that the car suffered from serious manufacturing defects which could not be set right by repair and that under law he was entitled to the replacement of the car by a new vehicle of the same description which should be free from defects. He also claimed compensation for 'mental agon/ to the tune of Rs. 60,000.00. In the said complaint petition, M/s. Hindustan Motors Ltd. was impleaded as the first respondent and the appellant herein as the second respondent. The Opp. Parties No. 1 and 2 filed their objection-statements before the State Commission. They raised the contention that the State Commission has no jurisdiction to deal with the complaint inasmuch as the complainant was not a consumer since he had purchased the vehicle for the purpose of running it as a taxi. They also disputed the allegation of the complainant that the vehicle suffered from any material defects and was liable to be replaced by a new car. The claim for damages was stoutly refuted by the respondents as totally untenable.
(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:
"Nevertheless, the fact remains that the complainant could not use the car when it was sent to repairs in the workshop. Having bestowed our thoughtful consideration to this aspect of the case, we are of the opinion that ends of justice would be met if Rs. 200.00 per day is awarded as compensation to the complainant for 10 days. Opp. Party No. 2 shall pay a sum of Rs. 2,000.00as compensation to the complainant within two months from today".
Feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the State Commission, the appellant has come up before us with this appeal.
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.