OPINION ON MOTION FOR REHEARING
Upon original submission we found the evidence insufficient to support the jury’s answer to Special Issue 6 in which the jury awarded $6,000.00 to appellant for loss of use of his truck and, based upon that finding, remanded the case for re-trial. Appellant has now filed a motion for rehearing in which he waives his right to recover for loss of use of the truck in question. He now asks us, in accordance with the jury verdict, to render judgment in his favor for the $297.66 difference between the $3,600.00 amount awarded to him as the cost of remedying the breach of warranty less the $3,302.34 amount awarded Rutledge for his usual and customary charges, trebled, or a total of $892.98, plus $2,500.00 attorneys’ fees, plus $3,000.00 for the value of the truck, together with interest and court costs. For reasons explained below, we grant appellant’s motion and render judgment as hereinafter stated.
Appellant contends, that under the provisions of the Deceptive Trade Practices — Consumer Protection Act (Tex.Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 17.41 et seq.), the $297.66 difference between the amount awarded to him as damages for appellee’s breach of warranty and the amount awarded appellee as the value of the services, material and labor furnished by appellee should be trebled. We agree. Tex.Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 17.50(b)(1) provides that a consumer prevailing in a suit under this section may obtain an award for the amount of actual damages he was found to have suffered and that in addition the court shall award two times that portion of the actual damages that does not exceed *314$1,000.00. As an individual seeking services from appellee, Garcia qualifies as a consumer under the Act, Tex.Bus. & • Com.Code Ann. § 17.45(4), and his net amount of damage is under $1,000.00. He is, therefore, entitled to judgment for the actual net damages found — $297.66—plus two times that finding for a total recovery of $892.98. Appellant is also entitled to the $2,500.00 found by the jury to be a reasonable attorneys’ fee. Tex.Bus. & Com.Code Ann. § 17.50(d).
We next consider appellant’s contention that he is entitled to judgment for the $3,000.00 as value of the truck on the date of conversion as found by the jury. The general rule is that the measure of damages is the value of the property converted at the time of the conversion with legal interest. Imperial Sugar Co. v. Torraos, 604 S.W.2d 73, 74 (Tex.1980). When the plaintiff has regained possession of the converted goods prior to trial, the damages to which he is entitled will normally be mitigated accordingly. American Surety Co. of New York v. Hill County, 254 S.W. 241 (Tex.Civ.App.—Dallas 1923, affirmed 267 S.W. 265). Appellant’s damages would ordinarily be calculated by subtracting the value of the truck at the time he regained possession from the value of the truck at the time of the conversion. Field v. Munster, 11 Tex.Civ.App. 341, 32 S.W. 417 (Tex.Civ.App.1895, err. dis. 89 Tex. 102, 33 S.W. 852). However, the burden is on the defendant to prove facts which will authorize a mitigation of the damages claimed by the plaintiff. Mayo Shell Corp. v. Lotz Towing Co., 279 S.W.2d 124 (Tex.Civ.App.—Galveston 1955, writ ref. n.r.e.). No issue as to the value of the truck on the date of its return to appellant was submitted and no such issue was requested by appellee. By his failure to request such an issue appellee waived the issue. Tex.R.Civ.P. 279. We are therefore compelled to the conclusion that appellant is entitled to judgment for the value of the truck on the date of conversion.
Since we have concluded that the trial court’s action in granting a judgment non obstante veredicto was not justified, reinstatement of the jury’s verdict is required and judgment must be rendered in accordance with that verdict. Jackson v. Ewton, 411 S.W.2d 715 (Tex.1967). The previous judgment of this court is withdrawn and the clerk of this court is directed to enter our judgment reversing the judgment of the trial court and rendering judgment for appellant Garcia in the amount of $3,892.98, plus attorney fees of $2,500.00 with statutory interest, and costs of the suit and appeal.