2.	Petitioner booked a car, namely, Matiz SS model with PS Cars Pvt Ltd (Opposite Party No.1 before the District Forum), Respondent No.1 herein, who was the dealer of Daewoo Motors India Ltd -Respondent No. 2 (Opposite Party No. 2) by depositing Rs. 1,50,000, which was paid on 6.2.2000 after getting loan from a finance company. Respondent No.1 gave assurance to the Petitioner that the car would be delivered within 3-4 days, whereas it was delivered only on 13th February, 2000. After one week, the vehicle broke down. Petitioner's brother who was driving, somehow, managed to bring the vehicle to his residence. Helpline of the Respondent was informed but it did not attend the complaint and, the next day, Respondent No.1 sent one mechanic who could neither rectify the defect nor could tow away the vehicle to the workshop, according to the allegations made in the complaint.
3.	Petitioner laid hand upon a slip showing that the vehicle was earlier delivered to one Rahul Tayal (Opposite Party No. 3) before being delivered to the Petitioner. Petitioner being aggrieved that a secondhand car was sold to him, filed the complaint before the District Forum.
4.	The Opposite Parties filed written statements. Respondent No. 1 admitted that it had received Rs.3,00,0007- from the Complainant. It denied the allegation that an assurance was given that the car would be delivered within 3-4 days. He further stated that the waiting period for the delivery of the car was 3-4 weeks and that the car was delivered on 13.3.2000. It denied the allegation that it had earlier delivered the car to Rahul Tayal. It was contended that there was no deficiency in service.
5.	Respondent No. 2 - M/s Daewoo Motors India Ltd in its reply stated that there was no privity of contract between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 2. That the car in question was delivered to Respondent No. 1 through invoice-cum-delivery challan on 28.1.2000 and then Respondent No.1 delivered the car to the Complainant on 13.2 .2000. That the Respondent No. 2 has no say or control in regard to allotment and delivery of car after the same was handed over to Respondent No. 1.
6.	Opposite Party No. 3 did not file any written statement but statement of Rahul Tayal, proprietor of Opposite Party No. 3 was recorded wherein he admitted that Respondent No. 1 had delivered one SS Model light blue colour Matiz to them in the end of January 2000 for three-four days at the time of his marriage and the car was returned to Respondent No. 1.
7.	District Forum disposed of the complaint by its order dated 18th December, 2001 by giving the following directions: "OP No. 1 is directed to refund to the Complainant Rs.1,435 out of the amount of Rs. 5,600 charged from the Complainant after deducting Rs. 200 for number plate and Registration charges of Rs.3,965, with 10% interest from the date of payment till the date of refund. OP No. 1 is further directed to pay 10% interest to the Complainant on the amount of Rs. 1,50,000 deposited on 6.2.2000 till the date of delivery i.e. on 13.2.2000 as OP No. 1 was responsible for delay in the delivery of the car, which had been delivered by the OP No. 2 to the dealer on 28.1.2000. This is in addition to the compensation of Rs. 20,000 for mental agony and harassment and Rs. 2,000 as cost of litigation. The above order should be complied with within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which action u/s 27 of the CP Act, 1986 will be taken against the Respondents."
8.	Petitioner, being aggrieved, filed the appeal before the State Commission. State Commission taking into consideration the fact that speedometer of the vehicle showed a reading at 160 kms while the warranty registration slip showed mileage at 58 kms, coupled with the fact that the vehicle had earlier been handed over to Rahul Tayal, came to the conclusion that Respondent No. 1 was guilty of unfair trade practice as it had sold a secondhand vehicle to the Petitioner. State Commission after observing that Respondent No. 2 - M/s Daewoo Motors had already gone into liquidation, that official liquidator had taken over the assets of the company, and that most the members of the Board of Directors of the company had already died, partly allowed the appeal and modified the order of the District Forum, directing Respondent No. 2 -M/s Daewoo Motors to refund the cost of the car on return of the car by the Petitioner. Respondent No. 1 - M/s P S Cars Pvt Ltd was directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000 towards mental agony and harassment. Petitioner, not satisfied with the Order passed by the State Commission, filed the present Revision Petition. Counsels for the parties have been heard.
9.	Neither the District Forum nor the State Commission has come to the conclusion that there was any manufacturing defect in the vehicle. In the absence of any finding regarding manufacturing defect, manufacturer could not be asked to reimburse the cost of the vehicle. State Commission has recorded the findings that the Respondent No. 1 was guilty of committing unfair trade practice, as it had sold a secondhand car to the Petitioner; that speedometer of the car showed meter reading at 160 kms, while the warranty registration slip showed mileage at 58 kms; and that the Respondent No. 1 had earlier handed over the vehicle to Rahul Tayal. State Commission had erred in absolving Respondent No. 1 of the liability to replace the secondhand vehicle sold to the Petitioner with a new one. The fault lay with Respondent No. 1 and not Respondent No. 2. Since Respondent No. 1 was guilty of committing unfair trade practice of selling secondhand car to the Petitioner, in all fairness, it is Respondent No. 1 alone, who should be made liable to refund the cost of the car on return of the car by the Petitioner to Respondent No. 1.
10.	Accordingly, the directions issued by the State Commission directing Respondent No. 2 to refund the cost of the car is set aside and, instead, Respondent No. 1 is directed to refund the cost of the car to Petitioner on return of the car by the Petitioner to the Respondent No. 1. We are not inclined to award interest on the amount ordered to be refunded, as the car had remained in the possession of Petitioner all this time. But in our view, compensation of Rs. 25,000 towards mental agony and harassment awarded by the State Commission to the Petitioner is grossly inadequate. Petitioner has been suffering for the last 11 years. For the unfair trade practice committed by the Respondent No. 1 by selling a secondhand car to the Petitioner, we are of the view that the Petitioner needs to be adequately compensated. Accordingly, we increase the compensation from Rs. 25,000 to Rs. 1,25,000.
11.	The Revision Petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated above with costs quantified at Rs.10,000 to be paid by Respondent No. 1 to the Petitioner.