Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
TATA ENGINEERING & LOCOMOTIVE CO. LTD. & ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
GAJANAN Y. MANDREKAR
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/05/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, D. P. WADHWA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted. we have heard the counsel on both sides.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order,
made on September 23, 1996 passed by the National Consumer
Disputes Redressal Commission in F.A. No. 784/94.
The respondent had booked commercial vehicle, more
commonly 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 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 that in spite of running the vehicle for
18000 to 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% 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 appellant 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 Kms.; 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
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
kms. The State commission passed the order on September
24,1994 by which date a further distance of more than
another 25000 to 30000 kms. would have been run. Under these
circumstances, proportionate deduction for use of the
vehicle would have been run. under these circumstances,
proportionate deduction for use of the Vehicle would have
been run. Under these circumstances, proportionate deduction
for use of the vehicle would have been given. We find force
in the contention. It is not the case that during the sai
period the vehicle was kept used. When the vehicle was being
used with the same defects as pointed out, necessarily the
purchaser is required to be compensated 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 circumstances, we think that 1/3rd of the
compensation awarded by the Commission may by 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 .
The appeal is accordingly allowed in part. No costs.