Mrs. Rajyalakshmi Rao, Member—The present appeal is filed by M/s. Ashok Leyland against the order 16.11.2001 passed by the State Commission, Orissa Cuttack in Original Complaint No. 45 of 1996, allowing the complaint for deficiency in service.

2. Brief facts of the case are:

The appellant-Ashok Leyland is the manufacturer and Shri Prabhulal Maru is the respondent No. 1 who purchased Ashok Leyland chassis with engine for a bus being Model “Comet Minor” ALPSV 3/15 WB 142" fitted with HINO 4D engine, 5 speed synchromesh Gear Box, tool kit, without front end structure for Rs. 3,55,478.35 (inclusive of Orissa Sales Tax @ 4%) from respondent No. 2 JL Automotives, Banarpal, District Angul who is the authorized dealer of the appellant. Respondent No. 3 is Cuttack Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Cuttack who has issued the demand draft in favour of the appellant. Both respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are proforma respondents.

3. The main grievance as alleged by the respondent No. 1 Shri Prabhulal Maru is that respondent No. 2 had wrongly delivered a vehicle passenger chassis and engine wheel base having 126" instead of 142" and also without supplying proper documents such as operators hand book and the warranty card. It is further alleged that when the vehicle was put on the road it started giving various mechanical problems such as high oil consumption, defective clutch and that there was structural defect such as gear box was found to be a 6 plate gear box and differential was found to be high. It is also alleged that although the vehicle was delivered on 2.9.1993, the registration was effected only on 6.12.1993, i.e., after 3 months. Respondent No. 1 claimed Rs. 15,00,175/- under various heads such as his loan refund interest, loss of livelihood, mental agony, etc. Accepting the version of the complainant/respondent No. 1, the State Commission directed the appellant to refund to the respondent No. 1 a sum of Rs. 3,55,478/- together with interest at the rate of 10% p.a. from the date of delivery till payment and also a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation for mental agony and harassment.

4. We heard both the parties at length and carefully perused the records. The main issues involved are as follows:

(a) Did the appellant supply a chassis with 126" wheel base instead of that of a wheel base of 142"? In deciding against the appellant, the learned State Commission relied on the fact that on 12.1.1996, the dealer who sold the vehicle (JL Automobiles) himself gave a report that the wheel base was found to be 126". The State Commission was also influenced by certain minor discrepancies in the price quotation dated 1.7.1993 and the sale invoice dated 21.8.1993; and on the fact that though the vehicle was delivered on 2.9.1993, the sale certificate was issued late only on 6.12.1993. The appellant has argued that the letter relied upon by the State Commission is issued 28 months after the delivery of the vehicle and has no relevance. The Certificate of Registration is issued by the Registering Authority only after the vehicle is purchased for inspection before such authority and all particulars including that of the wheel base are verified and entered in the Registration Certificate. The Registration Certificate placed in Annexure A/3 clearly states that the wheel base is 142". The provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act stipulate hang of the body fitted on the chassis with engine cannot exceed 60% of the wheel base. In the instant case, the over hang would be 94" which is 75% of a 126" wheel base and would not have passed inspection before registration of the vehicle. We think that this is clinching evidence. We have no reason to disbelieve the version of the appellant since their records and the Certificate Registration Authority show that the wheel base of the vehicle was 142".

(b) Whether Operators Hand Book and warranty card were supplied; the respondent averred that the appellant did not supply the documents along with the vehicle such as Operators