—Order— The complainant has tiled this complaint under s. 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (No. 68 of 1986) ("the Act") against the opposite-parties on February 21, 1989 before the State Commission. 2. It has been alleged that the complainant purchased a Mahendra Jeep Model CJ-500-D/91 W.B., two wheel drive Engine No. 44439. Chassis No. 44439 on 2-12-88 for Rs. 1,28,638.00 after making payment of price to opposite-party No. 1. At that time it had run 1618 kms. The jeep has been mentioned as brand new jeep in the Bill. In para 2 of the complaint it is stated as under :— ^^Mhty ,ojst dh ekywekr djus nj Mhty ,ojst djhc 8 fd-eh- izfr yhVj nsus dh thi esa fkdk;r feyhA /;ku ls ns[kus ij psfll ds nkfgus fiNys fgLls ij ,oa ck;s ik;nku esa cS.M ¼VsMkiu½ fn[kkbZ fn;kA thi dk baftu di ozsdizsku djrk gqvk feykA A complaint of the aforesaid defects was made to opposite party No. 1 on 30-12-88. The complainant was asked to bring the Jeep on 2-1-89 as at that time, there was no mechanic available, on 2-1-89 service was done and left paidan was repaired. Other defects remained as they were. As the defects continued, the complainant was asked to bring the Jeep for repairs on 9.1.89. The mechanic after inspecting it told that the engine can somewhat, be alright after the rings etc. are changed. The complainant requested opposite-party No. 1 to replace the Jeep but no assurance was given to this effect. At that time Jeep had already run about 4055 kms. At that time the Jeep was within the warranty period. There was correspondence as mentioned in para 5 of the complaint for replacing the Jeep. Thereafter opposity-party No. 1 asked on 17-1-89 to bring the Jeep to Kota. It was detained there upto 23-1-89. The complainant has alleged : ^^bl vof/k esa thi ds baftu dks [kksyus ij fjax vkfn lkeku ?kfV;k fdLe dk fudykA blds ckotwn Hkh thi ds cnys ubZ thi ugha nh xbZ rFk dqN iqtsZ cny dj thi okfil lEHkyk nh gSA thi ds baftu dks [kksyus ls Hkh thi ds baftu ds eq[; ikVZl LVs.MMZ DokfyVh ds ugha feyuk izekf.kr gks pqdk gSA 3. The complainant has stated that the opposite-parties are dealers of Mahindra & Mahindra Jeep Company who did not supply a good Jeep to her. The complainant has stated that the opposite-parties are dealers of Mahindra & Mahindra Jeep Company who did not supply a good Jeep to her. The Jeep on account of the defects detailed in para 2 cannot be said to be a brand new Jeep. 4. The complainant has prayed that a direction may be given to the opposite parties to replace the Jeep and in the alternative to refund its price Rs. 1,28,638.00 alongwith (i) Insurance premium. Road Tax, Permit expenses etc. Rs. 5,000/- (ii) compensation for taking the Jeep to Kota several times and its non-user on account of repairs etc. Rs. 5,000/- and (iii) Rs. 5,000/- on account of mental agony and loss. This complaint was filed on Feb. 21. 1989. 5. The complainant has filed the following documents (1) Invoice dt. 2-12-88 (Ex. C/l), (2) Certificate of Registration (Ex. 2), (3) Form P. Co. P Part B (Ex. C/3), (4) Copy of notice dt.l1.1.89 (Ex. C/5), Copy of telegram (Ex. 06), (6) Acknowledgment of receiving Jeep for repairs (Ex.C 7), (7) Premium Receipt (Ex. C/8), (8) Postal Receipts (Ex. C/9 to Ex. C/l 1) and (9) Acknowledgments (Ex., C/12 to Ex. C/14). . 6. Opposite-parties No. 1 and 2 filed their version of the case on April 10, 1989 contesting the complaint. It was stated in the version of the case that pre-delivery inspection was given and after being satisfied the Jeep was purchased by the complainant. It was denied that information regarding 8 kms. average was given, The Jeep was brought for service on 2-1-89 and at that time it had run 3648 kms. The Ring and Piston were changed on 20-1-89 and at that time it had run 4834 kms. Thereafter on 2-2-89 when it had already run 6510 kms. one Chandra Prakash pointed out the following defects:—(1) Diesel Tank leakage (2) Light check up and (3) R. Wheel seal leakage. It was stated that opposite-party No. 2 gave reply dated 12-1-89 to the letter dt. 11.1.89 in which it was stated that whatever defects were pointed out, they were rectified and a satisfaction note was obtained. A plea was raised that at the time of sale, warranty of Mahindra and Mahindra Co. was delivered. It was stated that opposite-party No. 2 gave reply dated 12-1-89 to the letter dt. 11.1.89 in which it was stated that whatever defects were pointed out, they were rectified and a satisfaction note was obtained. A plea was raised that at the time of sale, warranty of Mahindra and Mahindra Co. was delivered. In para 5 of the version of the case, it has been stated : ^^bl okj.Vh ds vuqlkj izkfFkZuh }kjk tks Hkh [kkfe;ka crkbZ xbz os iwjh dj nh xbZA okj.Vh dh krksZ ds vuqlkj ;fn fdlh thi dk dksbZ fgLlk okj.Vh ihfj;V esa [kjkc gksrk gS og Ýh vkWQ dkWLV cnyk tk ldrk gSA okj.Vh esa ;g izko/kku dgha ugha gS fd thi ds cnys thi nh tk;saA vizkFkhZ la[;k ,d o nks us okj.Vh dh krksZ dk iw.kZ :i ls ikyu fd;k gSA 7. It was submitted that satisfaction notes were obtained from the authorised persons of the complainant every time after repairs. An objection of jurisdiction was raised. Claim for replacement of the Jeep or for refund of its price on payment of compensation etc. were denied. 8. Alongwith the version of the case opposite-parties No. 1 and 2 submitted (1) Invoice dt. 2.12.88, (2) Vehicle delivery Memo dt. 2.12.88, (3) Reply dt. 12.1.89, (4) Satisfaction Note (Ex. OP/2/C.W.1), (5) Job Card (Warranty) (Ex. OP/3/C.W. 1) and (6) Preventive Maintenance service (coupons). 9. Opposite-parties No. 3 and 4 filed a separate version of the case on 10-4-89. Preliminary objections pertaining to (1) constitutional validity of the Act and (2) jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint were raised. On merits it was submitted that they have not sold the Jeep to the complainant and as per the settled practice they had sold it to opposite-party No. 2 and according to them it was a dealing between two principals; opposite-party No. 2 was not their agent. It was stated that before the Jeep was delivered to opposite-party No. 2, its roadworthiness was fully scrutinised and after assuring that it suffered no defects, its delivery was taken by opposite-party No. 2. Ignorance was pleaded as to how opposite-parties No. 1 and/or 2 dealt with the Jeep after taking delivery. It was mentioned that the complainant has not set out sufficient particulars of the faults for the alleged "failure" of the Jeep. Ignorance was pleaded as to how opposite-parties No. 1 and/or 2 dealt with the Jeep after taking delivery. It was mentioned that the complainant has not set out sufficient particulars of the faults for the alleged "failure" of the Jeep. According to them the complainant has not alleged that it suffers from manufacturing defect and as there were no manufacturing defects, the answering opposite-parties No. 3 and 4 cannot be held liable as manufacturer. In substance these opposite-parties denied the claim made by the complainant. 10. The complainant has examined her husband Shri Ramnarayan as C.W. 1. who holds power of attorney on her behalf in support of the complaint. The opposite-parties submitted affidavits of Sarva Shri. N. K. Chhabra, Laxmi-narain and Ghasi. They were all cross-examined on their affidavits. In the evidence preventive Maintenance Coupon (Ex. Op./W. 3/1), Job Card (warranty) (Ex. O.P./W. 3/2), Warranty (Ex. O.P./W. 3/3), stock transfer order (Ex. O.P/W. 3/4) were exhibited. 11. We heard Shri Ramnarayan Verma, authorised representative of the complainant and Shri G. S. Bapna, Advocate for opposite-parties No. 1 to 4 and considered the record in the light of the arguments advanced before us. 12. From arguments advanced, the following points emerge for our consideration :— (1) whether the complainant cannot invoke the provisions of the Act and as such the complaint cannot be entertained and tried under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (No. 68 of 1986) ("the Act"). (2) whether the complainant is entitled to get the Jeep replaced which shall be free from defect ? (3) whether the complainant is entitled for the return of the price of the Jeep paid by her ? (4) whether the complainant is entitled to get the amounts as detailed in para 7 (Ba), (Sa) and (Da) and if so, from which opposite-parties ? Point No. 1 : 13. Opposite-parties No. 1 and 2 have raised an objection that s. 18 of the Act cannot be invoked and the State Commission has no jurisdiction to entertain and try the complaint. Opposite-parties No. 3 and 4 have taken a plea that the State Commission does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complainants present complaint for the reasons mentioned in para 7 of the reply. In para 1 of the complaint it has been stated that. Opposite-parties No. 3 and 4 have taken a plea that the State Commission does not have jurisdiction to entertain the complainants present complaint for the reasons mentioned in para 7 of the reply. In para 1 of the complaint it has been stated that. izkfFkZuh }kjk vkthfodk dekus dh n`f"V ls jktLFkku {ks= ds fy, vkj-,l-Vh- lafonk okgu LFkkbZ vuqKk i= izkIr djss cSad vkWQ cM+kSnk kk[kk [kVM ls _.k ysdj :i;s 1]28]638@& dsa cSad MªkV ds tfj;s vizkFkhZ la[;k ,d dks dher vnk djds fnukad 2-12-88 dks esgsUnzk thi] ekWMy lh-ts- 500 Mh@91 MCY;w-ch- nks Oghy MªkbZo] baftu u-Mh-,y-&44439 pSfll ua- 444439 izkIr dh FkhA Shri Ramnarain Verma husband of the complainant as C.W.I, is who also authorised representative of the complainant, has stated in his deposition that:— ^^thi dks vHkh pykrs gS fd mldks ,d lkFk yEch nwjh esa ugha pyk ldrsA thi cSad ls _.k ysdj VSDlh esa pykus ds mís; ls [kjhnh xbZ FkhA thi dk iwjs jktLFkku dk ijfeV gSA fdUrq thi esa [kjkch gksus ls dsoy cwUnh ftys esa gh pyk;k tkrk gSA S. 2(l)(d) of the Act defines "consumer". The relevant part, for our purpose, is as follows :— "(d) "consumer" means any person who; (i) buys any goods for a consideration which has been paid or premised or partly paid and partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment and includes any user of such goods other than the person who buys such goods for consideration paid or promised or partly paid or partly promised, or under any system of deferred payment when such use is made with the approval of such person, but does not include a person who obtains such goods for resale or for any commercial purpose; or (ii).......................................... According to this definition even if a person buys any goods for consideration and obtains such goods for any commercial purpose then he is not a "consumer" within the meaning of s. 2(l)(d) of the Act. The expression "commercial purpose" has not been defined in the Act. In Venkataramaiya Law Lexicon for Legal Maxims, Volume, I, II Edition meaning of the words "commercial purposes" has been given. The expression "commercial purpose" has not been defined in the Act. In Venkataramaiya Law Lexicon for Legal Maxims, Volume, I, II Edition meaning of the words "commercial purposes" has been given. It is stated that the word "commercial" according to the Oxford Dictionary means "viewed as a matter of profit and loss." The word "purpose" means "object which is in view or for which is made; "aim"; "an end." In ILR 1957 2 Allahabad 407(1) while considering the expression "Commercial purpose" it was held that, crux of the matter is whether it was the object or the aim of the Municipal Board to make a profit out. of the Water Works undertaking. The words commercial purposes have been used in Explanation to 3 of the U.P. Electricity (Duty) Act 1952. It was further held that it would, therefore, cover an undertaking the object of which is to make a profit out of the undertaking. It is aim and not the effect which has to be taken into consideration. 14. The expression "commercial purposes" as used in Gen. Acts 1915, P. 573 was considered in Conecuh Country V. Simmons 95 SO 488, 19 Ala APP 65(2). It was held that the Trucks used by a lumber Manufacturer for hauling logs, timber, lumber and commissory provision as well as provisions used by the owners family, were used for "commercial purposes" and, therefore, subject to a previlege or licence tax assessed by the country commissioner. 15. In words and Phrases Vol. 7A, Permanent Edition at page 546 it is stated as under :— "Where the driver of truck described in indemnity policy while delivering ice for insured stopped truck to allow child riding therein at drivers invitation to alight, and child was struck by another automobile while crossing street, truck was held engaged in "commercial purposes" within indemnity policy insuring holder against loss by reason of use of any automobiles described therein for commercial purposes. Western Casualty & Surety Co. V. Independent Ice Co., 80 S. W. 2nd 626, 627, 190 Ark 684." 16. In Websters Third New International Dictionary it is stated that the term commercial means "of, in or relating to commerce." In general "commerce" includes the transportation of passengers (Caserta V. Home Lines Agency, Inc., D.C.N.Y., 154 F. Supp. 356,358)(3). Western Casualty & Surety Co. V. Independent Ice Co., 80 S. W. 2nd 626, 627, 190 Ark 684." 16. In Websters Third New International Dictionary it is stated that the term commercial means "of, in or relating to commerce." In general "commerce" includes the transportation of passengers (Caserta V. Home Lines Agency, Inc., D.C.N.Y., 154 F. Supp. 356,358)(3). It is well settled that when the expression "commercial purpose" has not been defined in the Act, its common parlance meaning should be given and according to that commercial purpose is that purpose the object or aim of which is to make profit. "Commercial" encompasses all business activities. It means occupied with commerce. When the Jeep is engaged for transportation of passengers for hire, it can safely be held that it is used for a commercial purpose. It is an admitted case of the complainant that the Jeep was purchased with an object to run it as a taxi. To use the Jeep as a taxi is a commercial purpose for the reason that the complainant purchased it for running it as a taxi i.e. on hire in whole of Rajasthan. Its registration number, is also RRT 2271. The contract carriage permit was granted to the complainant. In the Form P. Co. P. it is mentioned that sitting capacity of the Jeep is seven including driver. The permit is upto 13-12-91. In this Form it is mentioned Taxi Jeep Model 88. It was held in M/s Oswal Fine Arts vs. M/s H.M.T., Madras Coriginal Petition No.l of 1988 decided on 27-4-89 by the National Commission,New Delhi)(4)that a person who obtains goods for a commercial purpose is specifically excluded from the scope of the expression "consumer" by the definition contained in s. 2 (l)(d)(i) of the Act: A taxi is a motor car plying for hire. As the Jeep was purchased for taxi purpose the object of which was to earn profit, it is certainly a commercial purpose. A person who purchases goods for consideration and obtains such goods for commercial purposes is not included in the definition of consumer as given in s. 2(l)(d)(j) of the Act. As the complainant is not a consumer, we hold that she is not entitled to invoke the previsions of the Act. Point No. 2 17. The complainant has alleged the defects in the Jeep in para 2 of the complaint. As the complainant is not a consumer, we hold that she is not entitled to invoke the previsions of the Act. Point No. 2 17. The complainant has alleged the defects in the Jeep in para 2 of the complaint. So also she has alleged in para 3 that the mechanic told her that after replacing the rings etc. the engine of the Jeep can be somewhat alright. In para 5 the complainant stated that when the engine was opened, it was found that rings etc. were of inferior quality and that the main parts of the engine were not of standard quality. In support of these averments contained in the complaint Ramnarayan Verma C. W. 1 was examined and he has supported the allegations made in the complaint. It will be useful to excerpt the following terms of the New Vehicle Warranty. It is stated as under :— "This is to certify that we, Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd., Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Bombay 400039 India warrant each new motor vehicle manufactured by us to be free from defects in material and workmanship under normal use and service, our obligations under the warranty being limited to making good at our factory any part or parts thereof, including all equipments or trade being limited to trade accessories (except tyres and batteries) originally supplied by us, which is within one hundred and eighty (180) days from the date of sale of such vehicle to the original purchaser or before such vehicle has been driven 12000 kms. (7500 miles) while ever event shall occur first, returned to us at our factory in Kandivli, Bombay Nasik, Maharashtra with transportation and other charges prepaid and which our examination shall disclose to our satisfaction to have been defective in material or workmanship. We however, make no warranty nor assume any liability in respect of any defect in metal or other material in any part, device of trade accessories which should not have been discovered by ordinary factory inspection. This warranty is expressly in lieu of all other warranties expressed or implied and of all other obligations or liabilities on our part, if any, and we neither assume nor authorise any other person to assume for us any other liability in connection with the sale of our vehicle. There are limitations of Warranty also. This warranty is expressly in lieu of all other warranties expressed or implied and of all other obligations or liabilities on our part, if any, and we neither assume nor authorise any other person to assume for us any other liability in connection with the sale of our vehicle. There are limitations of Warranty also. The material terms are these; The Manufacturers warranty protect you, the owner, against defects in factory material and workmanship. Normal maintenance requirements are the responsibility of the owner and are not covered by the Warranty. To provide you with a better understanding of your warranty coverage, certain limitations wherein the Warranty does not apply are listed below :— Pre-delivery inspection, 2,000 kms. and 4,000 kms. free inspection services are pre-requisite for warranty consideration. Maintenance Service Items : Engine Tune-up, Clutch and Brake Pedal Free Play or Linkage Adjustments, Body or Chassis Tightening Operations, Engine Oil and/or Filter Changes, Belt Adjustments, Front Wheel Alignment and Wheel Balancing, Fuel System Adjustmsnts or Cleaning, Tyre Rotation, Lubrication and/or Lubricant changes, Checking and Focussing of Lights, Servicing of Starter, Voltage Regulator Adjustment, Electrical Connections and Speedometer Cable. Normal Maintenance Service Replacement Items : Filters, Brake or Clutch Linings, Wiper Blades, Belts, Cables, Spring Bushings, U. Joint Cross, Water pump Kits. Tie Rod Ends, Bell-crank Kit, Hoses Wheel and Master Cyl. Kits and Bulbs. Sparkplugs, Ignition points, Condenser, Rotor, Distributor Cap. 18. A list of proprietory items has also been given in the warranty under the head proprietory items. At the risk of repetition it may be stated that the complainant has purchased the Jeep in question from opposite-party No.1 and or 2 who are the authorised dealers of opposite-parties No.3 &4. According to the opposite-parties No. 3 & 4 there is no privity of contract between the complainant and opposite-parties No. 3 & 4. The dealings between the opposite-parties No. 1 & 2 on the one hand and opposite-parties No. 3 & 4 on the other hand are between the principal to principal. According to opposite-parties 3 & 4 the complainant has not alleged that the Jeep has manufacturing defects. Opposite-parties No. 1 & 2 have categorically denied that there were any manufacturing defect or that there were defects of the kind which can be called manufacturing defects. According to opposite-parties 3 & 4 the complainant has not alleged that the Jeep has manufacturing defects. Opposite-parties No. 1 & 2 have categorically denied that there were any manufacturing defect or that there were defects of the kind which can be called manufacturing defects. According to them for the first time when the Jeep was brought to the workshop for service, it had already run 3648 kms. At the time when the rings and piston were changed on 20.1.89 it had run 4834 Ions, and thereafter upto 2.2.89 it had run 6510 kms. S. 12 of Sale of Goods Act, 1930 deals with Condition and Warranty. It reads as under : "12. Condition and Warranty :—(1) A stipulation in a contract of sale with reference to goods which are the subject thereof may be a condition or a warranty. (2) A condition is a stipulation essential to the main purpose of the contract the breach of which gives rise to a right to treat the contract as repudiated. (3) A warranty is a stipulation collateral to the main purpose of the contract the breach of which gives rise to a claim for damages but not to a right to reject the goods and treat the contract as repudiated. (4) Whether a stipulation in a contract of sale is a condition or a warranty depends in each case on the construction of the contract. A stipulation may be a condition, though called a warranty in the contract." 19. S. 13 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 provides when condition to be treated as warranty, sub-section (2) of s. 13 is as follows :— "(2) Where a contract of sale is not severable and the buyer has accepted the goods or part thereof, the breach of any condition to be fulfilled by the seller can only be treated as a breach of warranty and not as a ground for rejecting the goods and treating the contract as repudiated, unless there is a term of the contract, express or implied, to that effect." 20. If there was manufacturing defect in the Jeep the contract of sale could be repudiated, for, a condition is a stipulation essential to the main purpose of the contract, the breach of which gives rise to a right to treat the contract as repudiated. If there was manufacturing defect in the Jeep the contract of sale could be repudiated, for, a condition is a stipulation essential to the main purpose of the contract, the breach of which gives rise to a right to treat the contract as repudiated. The breach of warranty merely gives rise to claim for damages and not a right to reject the goods and not to treat the contract as repudiated. A pervsal of Vehicle Delivery Memo Ex. O. P./l/CW—1 shows that the Jeep was delivered in good condition and to the complainants satisfaction. The signatures of the customer are below "in good condition and my satisfaction." It shows that when the Jeep was delivered it was in good condition, and the customer was satisfied with its condition. The Jeep was sent for repairs at the workshop of opposite-party No. 2 at Kota. There is satisfaction note Ex. O. P./2/CW 1 in which it is stated "......have been attended to my entire satisfaction on no charge basis to him/us......and I..... satisfied with the work." That satisfaction note contained details of the parts replaced and parts checked/ repaired. Ex. O. P. 3//CW 1 further shows that repairs and replacement out of second free service Ex. O. P./CW 3/2 which is Job Card (Warranty) which contains the details of repairs effected. The complainant has been sending the Jeep to the workshop of opposite-party No. 1. and 2 from time to time and thereafter took it back from the workshop after repairs and replacements as the case may be. We have carefully considered the statement of Shri Ramnarayan Verma, CW 1 and the affidavits of Laxminarayan (foreman) Ghasilal (Head Mistry) and N.K. Chhabra (Area Service Manager for North Zone of India) and the cross examination on these affidavits. From the evidence and documents on record it is established that there were no manufacturing defects in the Jeep of M/s Mahindra 8c Mahindra purchased by the complainant from opposite-parties No. 1 and 2. By opening the engine, when it was sent on 17-1-89 to the workshop of opposite-party No. 2, it was noticed that in engine there was back compression and thereafter cylinder head of the engine was opened and it was found that the ring of the piston of cylinder No. 3 was broken and after the breaking of the ring there was spot in the sleeve. New set of piston, ring and sleeve was placed which was of M/s Mahindra and Mahindra Company, and thereafter it became alright. It is not on record as to when this Jeep was purchased from opposite-parties No. 3 & 4 by opposite-parties No. 1 and 2. The opposite-parties No. 1 and 2 have fulfilled the terms of the warranty and they are still ready to abide by the terms contained in the warranty during the warranty period. The complainant has been taking delivery, after repairs or replacements, of the Jeep from time to time after signing the satisfaction note. In these circumstances we are of opinion that there were no manufacturing defects in the Jeep. The various defects pointed by the complainant in it from time to time were rectified/removed in accordance with the terms of the warranty. No mechanic or expert has been produced by the complainant to show that the defects pointed out in the Jeep constitute manufacturing defect. According to s. 13 (2) when the buyer has accepted the goods or part thereof, the breach of any condition to be fulfilled by the seller can only be treated as a breach of warranty and not as a ground for rejecting the goods and treating the contract repudiated, unless there is a term of contract or implied to that effect. This sub-section purports to enumerate the circumstances under which a stipulation normally having the effect of a condition is reduced to the status of a "warranty." We are, therefore, of the opinion that the complainant is not entitled to get the Jeep replaced free from defects. Point No. 3 : 21. We have already held that there is no manufacturing defect in the Jeep and that the opposite-parties No. 1 and 2 have fulfilled the terms of warranty. Repairs which were contemplated by the warranty were done and the parts which needed replacement in accordance with the warranty have been replaced and the complainant has been using it as a taxi thereafter, after giving the satisfaction notes to the opposite-parties No. 1 and 2. In these circumstances we are of opinion that the complainant is not entitled for the return of the price of the Jeep bought by her. Point No. 4 : 22. In para 7(b),(c) and (d) the complainant has claimed sum of Rs. 5,000/-, 5,000/- and 50,000/- respectively. So far as Rs. In these circumstances we are of opinion that the complainant is not entitled for the return of the price of the Jeep bought by her. Point No. 4 : 22. In para 7(b),(c) and (d) the complainant has claimed sum of Rs. 5,000/-, 5,000/- and 50,000/- respectively. So far as Rs. 5,000/- mentioned in sub-para (b) of para 7 is concerned, the complainant is not entitled to get the amount for she has purchased the Jeep and has been using it as a taxi and we have not held that the contract stands repudiated. So far as the sum of Rs. 5,000/- is concerned as mentioned in para 7(c) of the complaint, the Jeep remained in the workshop of opposite-party No. 2 from 17-1-89 to 23.1.89 i.e., for seven days. The Jeep is being used for taxi purpose. Shri Ramnarayan Verma C.W. 1 has stated that a sum of Rs. 5,000/- was spent by him and that the complainant has suffered a loss of Rs. 5,000/- as the Jeep was kept in the workshop and expenses for taking it to the workshop and bringing it back. He has not stated as to how much amount was spent in taking and bringing the Jeep back and what amount she used to earn per day by plying it as a taxi. Taking the facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, we are of opinion that ends of justice would be met if we award Rs. 200/- per day as compensation to the complainant when the Jeep remained in the workshop for repairs. The complainant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 1400/- on this count. The complainant has further claimed Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental agony and loss. Such compensation as claimed cannot be allowed. In regard to Point No. 4 we allow Rs. 1400/- only, as compensation. Opposite-parties No. 3 & 4 cannot be held liable to pay this amount to the complainant, for, they sold the Jeep to opposite parties No. 1 and 2. The complainant has purchased the Jeep from opposite-parties No. 1 and 2 only and so opposite parties No. 1 and 2 are liable to make payment to the complainant. Rest of the claim made by the complainant is rejected. 23. In view of the finding recorded in respect of Point No. 1, formulated hereinabove, the complainant cannot invoke the provisions of the Act. Rest of the claim made by the complainant is rejected. 23. In view of the finding recorded in respect of Point No. 1, formulated hereinabove, the complainant cannot invoke the provisions of the Act. The complaint is accordingly rejected. 24. Order pronounced on August 8, 1989.