- (1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the Opposite Party No. 2 (M/s Hindustan Motors Ltd) in Case No. 38 of 1989 on the file of the State Commission, U. P. challenging the correctness of the Order dated February 6, 1990 passed by the State Commission in so far as it has directed the appellant to pay a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 10,000/- in addition to the other reliefs granted to the complainant therein under the said order.
(2.) THE first respondent Company filed the complaint before the State Commission stating that on July 23, 1988 it purchased a Contessa Car from M/s Hindstan Automobile Kanpur, the local dealers of M/s Hindustan Motors Ltd. It was alleged in the complaint that there were serious defepts present in the vehicle such as broken speedometer cable, defective brake system, defect in two glass regulators and also the painting of the vehicle. It was also alleged in the complaint that the Opposite Party No. 1 had illegally failed to supply to it the migration certificate and in consequence of the said default, physical and mental agony was caused to them. On these grounds the complainant prayed that it may be awarded appropriate damages. After a detailed discussion of facts as disclosed by the materials pro-duced on record, the State Commission came to the conclusion that the warr-anty service had been duly carried out in respect of the vehicle and there was no substantial delay in regard to the same. It was further found that the complainant's allegation that the migration certificate was not furnished to them was not true and that the said certificate was actually received by the complainant on August 18, 1988. In regard to the alleged defect in the speedometer cable, the State Commission found that the complainant had failed to show when the said cable had been found to be defective. However, since the Opposite Party No. 2 submitted before the State Commission that they were prepared to reimburse to the complainant the cost of the speedometer cable in case the cash memo in respect of the same was given to them, the State Commission recorded the said submission. The complainant had claimed recovery of Rs. 1000/- alleged to have been spent by him for this journey from Lucknow to Delhi and Rs. 101/- as the price of the speedometer cable. The State Commission rejected the claim for travel expenses put forward by the complainant and directed payment of Rs. 101/-towards the cost of the speedometer cable in view of the admission made by the second respondent. As regards the claim by the complainant for recovery of the cost of the glass regulators, the State Commission came to the conclusion that the complainant firm had not made any request to the Opposite party for the replacement of the glass regulators at any time and the complainant had made the purchase of the glass regulators from Delhi of their own accord. However, since it was submitted on behalf of the Opposite party No. 2 that they were prepared to pay the price of both the glass regulators in case the complainant hands over to them the cash memos and old glass regulators, the said submission was merely recorded by the State Commission. Though a plea had been taken by the complainant that the silencer of the car was defective, the State Commission found that the said contention had not been proved and this item of claim put forward by the complainant as a ground for award of compensation was rejected by the State Commission. Yet another contention advanced by the complainant before the State Commission was that the petrol consumption of the car was very high and a sum of Rs. 6,000/- was claimed as compensation on this ground. The State Commission found that there was no proof whatever of the said allegation and it accordingly held that the complainant firm was not entitled to any compensation on this account.
(3.) THE next ground on which compensation had been claimed by the complainant was that the paint work on the car was defective and the whole car had to be repainted afresh. After discussing the evidence adduced in respect of the matter, the State Commission found that the complainant was not entitled to the grant of any relief on this ground also. Another plea put forward by the complainant in support of its claim for compensation was that the brake system of car was not satisfactory. The State Commission found that the defects and faults in the brake system of the car requires rectification. After taking note of the statement made on behalf of the second respondent that they were ready and willing to get the brake assembly of the vehicle to be thoroughly examined and to repair and set right any faults and defects that may be found in the brake system, the State Commission issued a direction to the Opposite party No. 2 that it should carry out proper repair of the brake assembly of the vehicle with due care and attention to the satisfaction of the complainant before March 15, 1990 and that a further guarantee for one more year for the brake assembly should be given to the complainant. The last ground put forward by the complainant was that the car supplied to him was a second-hand vehicle and not a new one. The State Commission rejected the said contention by holding that there was absatutely no proof of the same. ;