ORDER
D.P. Wadnwa, President
1. Five days delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
Appellant is the manufacturer of the Hindustan Contessa Classic Car. Complainant now first respondent before us purchased the Hindustan Contessa Car from the respondent No. 2, the dealer of the Hindustan Motors Ltd.-appellant herein.
2. Complaining deficiency in service complainant filed complaint before the State Commission claiming damages for the defects in the car. Complainant purchased the car on 30.11.1998 for Rs. 5,01,020/- which was of 1997 make. It is one of the contentions of the complainant that it was an old car but sold to him as a new car. He said that there was various manufacturing defects in the car and he was not getting proper service. Within couple of months he filed a complaint before the State Commission which was numbered as Complaint No. 112/1999. It is not necessary for us to detail the defects which the complainant pointed out and which were denied by the appellant. An expert was appointed to inspect the car. It was Mr. Abraham Cherian who gave his report on 20.11.2000. He found various defects which he detailed in the report which we reproduce :
“At the time of my inspection the following defects were noticed in the above vehicle :
1. Rattling Noise : On driving there was a rattling noise from the front dash board.
2. Rising of Temperature :
After a drive the temperature gauge went up to 120″C which is very high. This shows that the engine cooling system is not perfect.
3. Rusting of the Body :
Various parts of the car body had started rusting, the right side fender lower portion, both sides running boards and the spare type compartment inside the dicky had started rusting. The putty on the door water channels were found to be cracked.
4. Leaks from the beddings of the doors and glasses:
Since there was no rain at the time of my inspection I could not notice any leaks from the doors and glass headings.
5. Leaks from the front side and rear side of the body :
The carpets inside the dicky left side portion was found to be wet and spare tyre compartment and the spare tyre cover were found to be wet. This shows that water was leaking to the dicky through the dicky rubber headings.
6. Dark thick smoke output from the silencer :
On idle speed there was only normal smoke from the exhaust pipe. As the engine was raised black thick smoke was coming out from the exhaust pipe.
7. Performance of Air Conditioner :
Air Conditioner was in working condition. But the cooling was not up to the mark.
8. Problems with the Front Wheel Alignment:
At the time of my inspection the front wheel tyres were only showing normal wear and tear. The front wheel alignment of all cars vary depending on the road conditions.
9. Power Steering :
At the time of my inspection the. power steering was working properly. But hydraulic oil was overflowing through the reservoir cap.
10. Front Suspension :
The front suspension was not handling well while driving.
11. Body Painting :
The body painting was found to be substantial. Point bubbler seen at several places on the body.
In this case since the car has already done 39,740 kms. and is almost two years’ old I cannot confirm that the problems to the car are due to a manufacturing defect.
This report is issued without prejudice.”
3. Principally relying on the report of the expert and examining the pleas of the parties State Commission directed that the complainant shall produce the car before the Service Centre of the dealer and both the opposite parties shall carry out all the repairs free of cost within one month of the date of the delivery of the car at the Service Centre of the dealer and make the car roadworthy. A surn of Rs. 10,000/- was also awarded as compensation, and in default it was to carry interest @ 12% from the date of expiry of three months till payment. A sum of Rs. 2,000/- was also imposed as costs. The impugned order is dated 6.7.2002.
4. It is the manufacturer who has come up before us. It is not as much aggrieved by the impugned order of the State Commission as to the direction of award of compensation for Rs. 10,000/-. Mr. Lalit Bhasin, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no manufacturing defect in the car as has been pointed out by the Expert Commissioner. As a matter of fact, if we see the operative portion of the report of Expert Commissioner recorded that by the time he inspected the car it had already done 39,740 kms. and is almost two years old and, therefore, he could not confirm that the problems to the car were due to a manufacturing defect. The fact remains that the complaint was Bled within 5 or 6 months of purchase of the car by the complainant. If the proceedings had taken so long before the State Commission the whole blame cannot be imputed to the complainant. He did point out various defects to the car in his complaint which to an extent were justified from the report of the Expert Commissioner. It is not necessary for vis to hold whether there was manufacturing defect or not as fact remains that the State Commission has only directed removal of the defects existing in the car so as to make it road-worthy.
5. We do not think too much should be read into the award of compensation of Rs. 10,000/- as submitted by Mr. Bhasin. Compensation has been awarded for the harassment undergone by the complainant and expense incurred for the defects in the car which may not be attributed to manufacturing defect. We do not find any merit in this appeal and we dismiss the same.