—ORDER— —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. 3. 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 complainants 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 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. 4. 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. 5. 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. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. Another plea put forward by the complainant in support of its claim for compensation was that the brake system of car was not satisfactory. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. After having recorded the aforesaid findings, the State Commission proceeded to state as under :— "The State Commission comes to the conclusion with regard to each of them as follows :— (a) It has been averred that the second hand defective vehicle was sold to them making them believe that it was new one. It was also averred that unfair trade practice was adopted. A claim for the award for Rs. 20,000/- was made as compensation for the financial loss and torture both physical and mentally. But both these contentions have rejected by the Commission in the above para 3 (x) and 3 (xi) and so the complaint firm is not found entitled to claim relief on this ground. (b) A claim of Rs. 1000/- has been made by the complainant-firm for making delay in the supply of migration certificate. Under para 3 (iii) mentioned above the complainant firm is not held entitled to claim any compensation. (c) The complainant-firm has made a claim for Rs. (b) A claim of Rs. 1000/- has been made by the complainant-firm for making delay in the supply of migration certificate. Under para 3 (iii) mentioned above the complainant firm is not held entitled to claim any compensation. (c) The complainant-firm has made a claim for Rs. 2,10,227.60 for selling the second hand vehicle the brakes of which were defective and the paint of which was not upto the mark and which was reconditioned to give false appearance. In this regard the Commission has rejected the contention of the complainant in the aforesaid para 3 (x) and the point of painting the vehicle has also been rejected in the above para 3 (viii). So far as the brakes are concerned, opponent No. 2 has been held liable and responsible for getting the repair and replacement done to the best of satisfaction and the replacement of the brakes shall be done by the Opponent No. 2 in the manner mentioned above by March 31, 1990. Under these circumstances the complainant firm is not held liable to claim any relief legally. (d) The complainant-firm has advanced the claim for the award of Rs. 3,883/- for the replacement of speedometer cable and the defective glass regulator of the car. On these grounds the complainant-firm is found entitled to claim Rs. 838/-in all Rs. 101/- and Rs. 737/- each as according to paras 3 (iv) and 3 (v) above. (e) The complainant-firm has made the claim for the award of Rs. 1783/- as charges for the replacement of silencer and connected apparatus thereto. For this account the complainant firm is not held entitled to claim any amount whatsoever. (f) The complainant-firm has asked for Rs. 6000/- as compensation for the consumption of petrol of the vehicle. In the aforesaid para 3 (vii) the firm is not entitled to claim any amount. (g) The Commission holds the complainant-firm entitled for the lumpsum of Rs. 10,000/- on all these points." 11. Finally the State Commission concluded its Order by stating thus:— "5, under these circumstances the Commission concludes— (i) The Opponent No. 2 shall pay Rs. 10,838/- to the complainant latest by February 28, 1990. (g) The Commission holds the complainant-firm entitled for the lumpsum of Rs. 10,000/- on all these points." 11. Finally the State Commission concluded its Order by stating thus:— "5, under these circumstances the Commission concludes— (i) The Opponent No. 2 shall pay Rs. 10,838/- to the complainant latest by February 28, 1990. (ii) The Opponent No. 2 shall get the replacement of the brake assembly repaired and replaced taking due care and to the full satisfaction of the other party and one more years guarantee for the brake assembly is given to the consumer (complainant, firm.) All the expenses incurred in labour and materials shall be borne by the Opponent No. 2 themselves and no claim shall be made for any amount on this account from the complainant-firm." 12. In this appeal it is contended before us by the appellant (Opposite Party No. 2) that since the State Commission had recorded findings against the complainant in respect of all the contentions put forward by the complainant company other than the defect in the brake assembly, in respect of which a direction for complete reimbursement with a guarantee for a further period of one year had been issued by it, there was no justification at all for the State Commission to direct the appellant to pay a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant. 13. After hearing both sides we are of the view that the aforesaid contention of the appellant deserves to be upheld. The complainant company had alleged that the car supplied to it by the Opposite Parties was a second hand vehicle and not a new one; that it suffered from defects of various kinds enumerated in the complaint-petition, that the opposite parties had failed to furnish the migration certificate, that the petrol consumption of the car was very high and that the paint work was materially defective etc. All those contentions have been rejected by the State Commission as being unsupported by the evidence on record. The direction for reimbursement of the cost of the speedometer cable and of the glass regulators was based on the. concession made by the opposite party No. 2 that if was agreeable to pay those amounts and not on any finding recorded by the Commission that the speedometer cable or glass regulators were defective when the car was delivered to the complainant. concession made by the opposite party No. 2 that if was agreeable to pay those amounts and not on any finding recorded by the Commission that the speedometer cable or glass regulators were defective when the car was delivered to the complainant. The only defect found by the State Commission to have actually existed in the vehicle was with respect to the brake assembly and for this, the State Commission has issued a direction for total replacement of the brake assembly to be carried out before March 15, 1990 and for the issuance of a guarantee for a fresh period of one year in respect of the same. No other relief was considered by the State Commission to be called for in respect of the said defect. 14. The findings entered by the State Commission being as aforesaid, it is difficult to understand on what basis it proceeded to award a lumpsum compen-sation of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant company. The order of the State Commission does not contain any discussion of this aspect nor does it disclose what factors or reasons weighed with the State Commission in arriving at the conclusion that the complainant is entitled to such a lumpsum compensation. 15. Having considered the matter carefully, we are of the view that the facts and circumstances of the case do not justify the award of any relief to the complainant other than what has been granted to it under paragraph 5(ii) of the State Commissions Order, namely, the replacement of the brake assembly before March 15, 1990 and issuance of a fresh guarantee for a period of one year in addition to reimbursement of the cost of the speedometer cable and glass regulators. 16. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the State Commission in so far as it has directed the appellant herein to pay to the complainant company a lumpsum compensation of Rs. 10,000/-. In other respects the order of the State Commission will stand. 17. The appeal is allowed to the limited extent indicated above. The parties will bear their respective costs. Order pronounced on 13-7-1990.