B B Vagyani, President - The org. Complainant in consumer complaint No. 546/2002 has filed this appeal feeling dissatisfied with quantum of compensation. The Forum directed the Authorised Dealer of Santro Car to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/-to the Complainant for having sold secondhand car as a brand new car. The Forum has however exonerated the manufacturer of the car.
2.	We heard Mr S B Mohta, Advocate for the Appellant/org. complainant and Ms Vandana Mishra, Advocate for Respondent No. 2 org. O P No. 2. Proof of service in respect of Respondent No. 1 org. O P No. 1 is taken on record: The Postal Department informed the Appellant that the registered letter was delivered to the Respondent No. 1 on 22.04.06. None present for Respondent No. 1.
3.	The Complainant purchased Santro car for consideration of Rs. 3,80,741/- from Authorised Dealer on 21.12.2001. At the time of delivery of the car, Authorised Dealer told the Complainant that the car was brand new. However, the Complainant found that the said car was already sold to one Mr Vijay Verma on 08.12.2001. The car was also delivered to Mr Verma. However, Mr Vijay Verma could not arrange for loan and therefore transaction was cancelled and the vehicle was returned to the Authorised Dealer on 11.12.2001. It was found that Mr Vijay Verma used the car for some time. It was also found that the papers were also prepared in the name of Mr Vijay Verma. After having known the fraud played by Authorised Dealer, the Complainant made a serious grievance about the whole transaction. Ultimately the Complainant filed consumer complaint. The Authorised Dealer took a defence that though the car was booked by Mr Vijay Verma, it was not delivered to him. Respondent No. 2 raised a defence that there was no manufacturing defect in the car and therefore manufacturer of the car is not liable to pay any compensation to the Complainant. The Forum exonerated the manufacturer of the vehicle and directed the Authorised Dealer to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant for having sold secondhand car as brand new car to the Complainant.
4.	The Learned Advocate Mr Mohta made a serious grievance that the compensation awarded by the Forum below is on the lower side. According to him the Authorised Dealer committed fraud and therefore the case squarely falls within the ambit of unfair trade practice. He relied upon the judgment of the National Commission in case of Manager, Mehta Motors vs Rameshwar & Ors. He also made a serious grievance that the Lower Forum did not refer the judgments cited by the Complainant. In this behalf Mr Mohta placed reliance on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Thimappa Basappa Doddayan-kannavar (deceased) by L.Rs. vs Krishnappa Gangadharappa Naikar. Besides these two judgments, he also relied upon the judgments of the State Consumer Commission, Madras and Chandigarh.
5.	On perusal of the record, it is clearly seen that the Authorised Dealer practiced a fraud upon the Complainant and sold secondhand car as brand new car to the Complainant. The Authorised Dealer has also received price of brand new car. The ownership papers were prepared when the car was sold to Mr Vijay Verma. By application of whitener, changes were made in the earlier papers and the name of the Complainant is inserted in the documents. The defence raised by the Authorised Dealer seems to be false. The car was in fact delivered to Mr Vijay Verma, the earlier purchaser. The earlier purchaser had used the car for some time. The Authorised Dealer has adopted unfair trade practice and sold the secondhand car as a brand new car to the Complainant. Under the circumstances, the Forum has rightly come to the conclusion that there is deficiency in service and awarded Rs. 25,000/-. The compensation awarded by the Forum is inadequate taking into consideration the fraud practiced by the Authorised Dealer. The Forum has not taken into consideration the false defence raised by the Respondent No. 1 in the written statement. In the written statement, Respondent No. 1 has contended that only papers were prepared but car was never delivered to Mr Vijay Verma. This defence raised by the Respondent No. 1 proved to be false. The car was in fact delivered to Mr Vijay Verma and he used the car for some time. We are therefore inclined to award additional compensation.
6.	The prayer for replacement of car or refund of entire consideration at this stage is not possible because Complainant used the car till October 2002. He used the car for more than 17,000 kms. There is no manufacturing defect as such in the car. The Forum below has recorded the finding that there is no manufacturing defect in the car. Therefore, prayer of replacement of car or refund of consideration is rightly rejected by the Forum below. In the case of Manager, Mehta Motors, the State Commission recorded the finding that there was manufacturing defect in the Tractor. Therefore, order of replacement of defective Tractor was made. Such is not the position in the case in hand." The Forum below has drawn conclusions, which are found correct on the scrutiny of entire material placed on record. The Forum below has partly allowed the complaint and awarded compensation. Therefore non-citation of cases assumes very little importance. In the result, we pass following order:
ORDER
1.	Appeal is partly allowed with cost of Rs. 2,000/-to be paid by respondent No. 1 to the appellant.
2.	Respondent No. 1 Authorised Dealer is directed to pay additional compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the Appellant org. Complainant within period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.
3.	If order is not complied with within the stipulated time, the respondent No. 1 is liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a. on the amount of Rs. 50,000/-.
4.	Rest of the order is confirmed.
Appeal allowed.