A
B
TATA ENGINEERING AND LOCOMOTIVE
CO. LTD. AND ANR.
v.
GAJANAN Y. MANDREKAR
MAY 5, 1997
[K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.]
Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
C
Commercial Vehicle-Found defective-Claim for compensa-
tion-Deduction towards use1'--Compensation awarded by State Commission
confinned by the National Commissiort--Held, when the vehicle was being
used with the defects pointed out, the purchaser is required to be compensated
for not being delivered the vehicle in good condition to him as per the
D wan-anty after deduction towards the use of the vehicle--ln the circumstances
I/3rd of the compensation awarded by the Commission be deducted towards
the user of the vehicle--For the rest of the amount, order of the Commission
is confinned.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3620 of
E 1997.
F
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.9.96 of the National Con-
sumers Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi in P.A. No. 784 of
1994.
F.S. Nariman, Ravinder Narain, Aditya Narain and Amitabh Marwah
for JBD & Co. for the Appellants.
A.K. Goel and Sheela Goel for the Respondent.
G
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
Leave granted. We have heard the counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the Order, made on Septem-
ber 23, 1996 passed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Com-
H mission in P.A. No. 784/94.
80
..
TATAENGG.&LOCOMOTIVECO. v. G.Y.MANDREKAR
81
The respondent had booked commertial vehicle, more commonly A
known as a 'Tipper Truck' with registration No. SK 1210/B/36 on May 7,
1991. He purchased the vehicle after securing loans from a nationalised
Bank on usual commercial rate of interest. After running the vehicle as
driver-cum-owner for 9000 kms., it was found that the tyres were worn out
completely, front axil pins of the vehicle were not fixed properly; at a speed B
of 40 kms. per hour the vibration of the vehicle (empty) was very high as
the cabin was completely loose etc. He mentioned these defects in his letter
dated March 10, 1992, after eight months. Subsequently, he reiterated the
same in his different letters addressed to the agent, through whom he had
purchased the vehicle. Finally, by letter dated May 2, 1992, after intimating C
that in spite of running the vehicle for 18000 lo 18500 Kms., despite repairs,
the vehicle continue to give the same trouble. In spite of the warranty of
service~ the trouble was not done away. Accordingly, he filed a complaint
with the State Commission. The Commission after considering the evidence
and hearing the counsel on both sides, found that the appellant was liable
to pay a total amount of Rs. 4,81,132-17 with interest at the rate of 18% D
per annum w.e.f. July 28, 1992. That was confirmed on appeal by the
National Commission. Thus this appeal by special leave.
/Shri F.S. Nariman, learned senior counsel appearing for the appel-
E
!ant contends that the appellant is not so much on the quantification of the
damages awarded in this case; rather, they want to vindicate the principle
on which the damages are awarded in such type of complaints. According
to him, the complaint was laid after 8 months from the date of the delivery;
that too after the vehicle was used to cover a distance of 18000 to 18500
km.; the complaint was laid in August 1992. When the Commissioner
appointed gave his report on April 10, 1993, the vehicle had cover a
distance of 65000 kms. The State Commission passed the order on Septem-
ber 24, 1994 by which date a further distance of more than another 25000
F
to 30000 kms. would have been run. Under these circumstances, propor-
tionate deduction for use of the vehicle would have been given. We find G
force in the contention. It is not the case that during the said period the
vehicle was kept us~d. When the vehicle was being used with the same
defects as pointed out, necessarily the purchaser is required to be compen-
. sated for not delivering the vehicle in good condition as per the warranty
after deduction towards the use of the vehicle. In view of the facts and H
82
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997] SUPP. 1 S.C.R.
A circumstances, we think that 1/3rd of the compensation awarded by the
Commission may be deducted towards the user of the vehicle for the period
in question. For the rest of the amount, the order of the Commission is
confirmed.
B
The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. No costs.
R.P.
Appeal allowed.
Lex