BYFORD LEASING LTD. vs S.V.R.RAO

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.

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. The complaint was contested by the Appellant before the State Commission mainly on the ground that the warrantly terms which applied in the instant case were thosewhich appeared in their advertisement in the Hindustan Times dated 21.7.91 providing for a six months warranty on cars reconditioned by them covering all such assemblies replaced by the Company as well as labour.

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.

WHEN the Appeal against this order of the State Commission came up before this Commission on 16.9.93, both sides were heard and it was directed that there shall be a stay of enforcement of the impugned order passed by the State Commission subject to the condition that the Appellant Company deposits before the State Commission for payment to the Respondent a sum of Rs. 75,000/- within one month from the date of the order. It was further directed that incase the deposit is made, the amount will be paid over to the Complainant without insisting on any security and that in default of compliance of the condition stipulated above, the stay will stand automatically cancelled. The Appeal came up for hearing before us on 14.12.94, wherein a representative of the Appellant Company appeared in person t and prayed for the grant of an adjournment on the ground that the Appellant had terminated the engagement of the Counsel who was then on record and that they wished to engage some other Counsel to argue the case on behalf of the Appellant before this Commission. We observed that the Company should have taken necessary steps in this regard sufficiently in advance of the date of hearing of the case and that we were not at all satisfied with the tenability of the ground for adjournment. However, in the interests of justice, we granted the adjournment subject to the condition that the Appellant shall pay to the Respondent''s Counsel, Mr. B.M. Rao, a sum of Rs. 500/- by way of day costs within two weeks from the date of the order. We ordered that in default of compliance of this condition, the appeal will stand dismissed. The Appeal finally came up for hearing before us on 6.1.95. We heard the learned Counsels on both sides. The Counsel for the Complainant has brought the following to our notice: (i) That the Appellant had filed a Writ Petition No. 4845/93 in the High Court of Delhi against our Interim Order dated 16.9.93 and that the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition on 15.10.93 holding that they did not find any infirmity in the said order. (ii) That no payment was made by the Appellant as directed by this Commission on 16.9.93. (iii) That, in the meanwhile, the application u/Section 27 of the Act filed by the Complainant before the State Commission was adjourned to 18.10.93 in the light of this Commission''s stay order. Efforts of the State Commission to procure the presence of the M.D. of the Appellant Company proved futile; however, an application moved on behalf of the Appellant before the State Commission prayed inter-alia that no notice could be issued under the Act to the Chairman, Director or any other officer of the Company if cognizance has been taken under Section 27 of the Act. The State Commission has elaborately gone into the question (at pages 4 to 12 of their order dated 20/24.5.94 in Case No. C-488/93) and held that action can be taken against the M.D. or Chairman or any other officer under Section 27 of the Act, and dismissed the application of the Appellant with costs. (iv) That thereafter, the Appellant filed a Criminal Writ Petition No. 431/94 in the High Court of Delhi challenging the Order dated 20/24.5.94 of the Commission. Dismissing this Petition on 13.12.94 with costs, the High Court referred inter-alia to the unnecessary litigation indulged in by the Appellant apparently with a view to avoid liability to make the payments ordered by the State Commission/National Commission.

IN the Appeal before us, no substantive points have been made. The fact remains that the car reported by the Appellant as a reconditioned one had to be sent to the Appellant''s workshop several times for repairs and replacements and still was not made roadworty. As per A.A.U.I., the car was an accidented one with rusted body and defective differential. The State Commission has gone into all details of the case and we do not find any miscarriage of justice in the order dated 9.7.93 passed by that Commission. We accordingly confirm the Order of the State Commission and dismiss this appeal with costs which we assess at Rs. 5,000/-. We further direct the Complainant to return the disputed car to the Appellant.