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

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.

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." 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."

From the above definition it is clear that the warranty is given regarding the quality or character of the goods to be sold to induce the sale thereof. The buyer, taking into consideration the warranty, purchases the goods. The warranty given by a seller to repair the car within a period of six months free of cost, goes a longway to induce a customer to purchase the car. In the present case even the full amount had been paid by the complainant. In our view after the full amount had been paid by the complainant the respondent could not withdraw the warranty dated 7.7.91. It is further relevant to mention that the second warranty advertised on 21.7.91 was meaningless, unless the list of the sub-assemblies replaced by the seller, was given to the purchase at the time of sale of the car. In the present case no such list was provided by the respondent to the complainant. After taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case we are of the opinion that the warranty as announced by the respondent on 7.7.91 is applicable to the present case.

ACCORDING to the first warranty the complainant was entitled to all the repairs and replacements the car for a period of six months. However, the respondent did not honour the warranty when the car was sent for repairs in January''92. They allowed the complainant to take the car after repair when he had deposited the amount of Rs. 2,765/-. The complainant is, therefore, entitled to the refund of the said amount. The second question that arises for determination is, whether the car was a re-conditioned car as mentioned by them in their advertisement dated 7.7.91. The word re-conditioned is a technical word and has been interpreted in The Law Lord in Minster Trust Ltd. v. Traps Tractors Ltd. (1954) 3 All England Reports 136 ( at page 144) as follows : - "....Recondition is not a word to be found in the Dictionary, but it is obviously means to put back in condition, not, of course, into brand new condition, but to renew the machine in the sense of giving it a new lease of life. It means more than overhauling or repairing. In any machine there are some parts which are intended to last as long as the machine itself lasts, and other parts which have shorter life and need to be renewed from time to time. Reconditioning requires, I think that the machine should be thoroughly examined-usually that means stripping down-to see what renewable parts are worn, and all such parts which are substantially worn should be renewed. To insist that every slightly used part should be scrapped would be absurd. But any part that is left must, I think, have most of its life still in front of it, so that the machine as a whole, is given, as I say, a new lease of life."(emphasis supplied)

It is evident from the definition that in a reconditioned car the defective parts which cannot be repaired, are replaced and the other parts repaired, so that the car gets a new lease of life. Unfortunately, in the present case it has not been done. The complainant had to send the car many times to the workshop of the respondent for repairs and replacements still it has not been repaired properly. Inspite of writing various letters by the complainant the car cannot be said to have become road-worthy. In terms of Section 36-A(1) (VII) of the MRTP Act the burden of proving that the seller had conducted such tests which showed that it had been reconditioned, was on the respondent. However, they have failed to discharge the onus. The complainant obtained a certificate-dated 23.4.92 from the Automobile Association of Upper India regarding this car. It shows that the car is accidental car with rusted body. The differential of the car is defective and its approximate price is Rs. 55,000/-. In the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the opinion that the car in dispute cannot be said to be a reconditioned car.

THE affidavit of the complainant shows that he had been put to great inconvenience and suffered mental agony due to the wrong representation of the respondent regarding warranty and reconditioning. Consequently, we grant him Rs. 10,000/- as damages. Further we hold that the complainant is entitled interest on the amount of Rs. 83,681/-, from3.6.92 the date of complaint till the date of recovery of the amount @ 12% p.a. Before parting with judgment we may mentioned that it has not been shown as to how the Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. For the aforesaid reasons we accept the complaint with costs and direct the respondent to pay the amount of Rs. 93,681/- with interest on Rs. 83,681/- from the date of the complaint till recovery of the amount within a period of three months, failing which action shall be taken against them under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act. Costs Rs. 1500/-. Complaint allowed with costs.