1. This is a second appeal arising out of an action for breach of warranty. The plaintiff bought a Studebaker President Eight car from the defendants for Rs. 10,000. He bought it with a warranty that the car would do 75 miles an hour and that the petrol consumption was 15 miles to a gallon. The trial court decreed the suit and awarded to the plaintiff Rs. 3,000 as damages. The lower appellate court has confirmed the decree. A number of defences were raised by the defendants both before the trial court and the lower appellate court. We are satisfied that there is no substance in them. It is clear, in our view, from the evidence and correspondence to which we have been referred, and from the finding of the Judge in the lower appellate Court, that there has been a clear breach of warranty on the part of the defendants.
2. The only question for our consideration is therefore the question of damages. Normally this is not a question which is considered in a second appeal. In this case, however, we are disposed to review the matter that substantial justice as between the parties may be done. When the plaintiff finally discovered that the car would not come up to the warranty given by the defendants, he sold it after he had run it for three thousand miles for Rs. 6,600. The Courts below have awarded the plaintiff Rs. 3,000 in name of damages. We think this sum is excessive. The Courts below have assessed the damages upon a principle which seems to us to be quite unreasonable. The learned Subordinate Judge has taken the life of the car at two hundred thousand miles and upon that basis he has calculated the extra running cost on a 15 miles to the gallon consumption as compared with a 13 gallon consumption and has assessed damages accordingly. This in our view is not a fair method of assessment of damages.
3. We take into consideration the fact that the car has been in use by the plaintiff for some considerable time. He has run it for three thousand miles and any oar which has run three thousand miles depreciates considerably in value. No doubt the sum of Rs. 6,600 was all that the plaintiff could reasonably be expected to get in the market, as the market is today. We think it reasonable that a fairly substantial sum should be awarded in the first place because of damage which the plaintiff has obviously sustained and further we think that he is entitled to a certain sum because he has been subjected to inconvenience through the breach of warranty by the defendants. We are of opinion that the sum of Rs. 3,000 is excessive. In the circumstances, we consider that a sum of Rs. 2,000 is reasonable. We therefore allow this appeal to the extent that we reduce the sum awarded in name of damages to the plaintiff from Rs. 3,000 to Rs. 2,000. Costs throughout shall be in proportion to success and failure.