Aggrieved by the order dated 16.11.2007 passed by the UT Chandigarh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in appeal No. 715 / 2007, M/s. Berkeley Automobiles has filed petition, i.e., RP No. 789 / 2008 and aggrieved by another order dated 14.11.2007 passed by the same Commission in appeal no. 746 / 2007, M/s. Ashok Leyland (OP in the complaint) has filed RP No. 904 / 2008. Since the appeals by the petitioners were filed against the order dated 19.09.2007 passed by the District Disputes Redressal Forum-I, UT Chandigarh in the complaint case no. 47 / 2005, we deem it expedient in the interest of justice to decide both the revision petitions by means of this common order. 2. The facts and circumstances leading to the filing of the complaint have been amply noted in the order of the District Forum and need no repetition at our end. Complaint was filed by the complainant alleging deficiency in service and adoption of unfair trade practice by the OP / petitioner herein in regard to sale of a Ashok Leyland Chassis to the complainant which in as much as according to the complainant the opposite party charged the prices / of a new chassis and supplied an old and used chassis as new chassis as a result of which loss and injury was caused to the complainant. The complaint was resisted by the manufacturer on the ground that it was not concerned with the transaction of the sale of the chassis in question in as much as the dealer had sold the old chassis after the same was repossessed from a certain person. The dealer, however, came out with a specific plea that the chassis sold to petitioner was not a new chassis and in fact was an old one but it was sold at a much lesser price with his consent and full knowledge of the complainant and, therefore, they have not adopted any unfair trade practice. The District Forum after the trial and the material produced on record, however, partly allowed the complaint and gave the following directions:- n view of above discussion, we are of the opinion that the complaint must succeed. The same is accordingly allowed and the OPs are directed to refund the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- charged extra for the vehicle and also to pay Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation. The amount shall be paid within 30 days from the receipt of the copy of the order, failing which, they would be liable to pay back this amount alongwith interest @9% per annum since the date they received the amount, i.e., 25.06.2004 till realisation. The OP shall also pay a sum of Rs.2100/- towards litigation expenses. Accordingly, the complaint stands allowed in aforesaid manner. 3. Aggrieved by the said order both the sides filed appeals before the State Commission but without success as both the appeals were dismissed thereby affirming the order passed and direction given by the District Forum. 4. We have heard Ms. Surekha Raman, counsel for the petitioner in RP No. 904 / 2008 and Mr. Gagan Gupta, counsel for the petitioner in RP No. 789 / 2008 and Mr. S.S. Bawa, counsel for the respondent / complainant and have given thoughtful consideration to their submissions. After going through the version put-forth by the parties, in particular the plea advanced by M/s. Berkeley Automobiles, it is evident that initially the complainant had approached them for the purchase of a new Ashok Leyland chassis and for which he had paid a sum of Rs.2 lakh with promise to arrange the balance by getting finances from the Bank. After his loan was sanctioned, the Bank issued a Banker cheque, which was duly acknowledged by them vide invoice dated 25.06.2004. Since the amount received by the dealer was in excess of Rs.7,02,000/-, i.e., the price of a new chassis, they had returned the complainant a sum of Rs.68,000/- as according to the complainant Rs.20,000/- was deducted towards insurance of the chassis in question. Afterwards several defects were noticed in the chassis, some of which, of course, were rectified, and removed by the dealer free of costs. In view of the specific plea of the dealer that an old chassis was given to the complainant with the consent of the complainant at a reduced price then the price shown in the invoice dated 25.06.2004, the question arose as to what amount the dealer had received in connection with the said transactions. Although in the written version, it was pleaded that a credit note of Rs.1,80,000/- was issued to the complainant at the time of making the payment of Rs.68,000/- towards receipt but surprising no such credit note was produced on record either before the District Forum or before the State Commission. The complainant has made a categorical deposition that he has not received any such credit note or amount of Rs.1,80,000/-. That would clearly show that the dealer M/s. Berkeley Automobiles had in fact charged the price of a new chassis while actually, the delivered and old chassis which was priced less by about Rs.1,80,000/-. Mere issuance of a credit note is of no consequence unless it is shown that the credit note has been utilised and the amount has been appropriated or paid to the complainant or received by him in cash or by any other mode. We are, therefore, of the view that the complainant was at least entitled to a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- which as per own showing of the dealer the complainant was entitled due to the reduced price in respect of the old chassis. 5. These facts and circumstances would clearly amount to adoption of unfair trade practice by the dealer, if not by the manufacturer because the manufacturer claims ignorance about the said transaction and in any case, transaction with regard to sale of old or used vehicle was unauthorised and against the terms and conditions of the dealership they had given to the dealer. 6. In view of the above facts, even after the sale of the chassis, the dealer had rectified certain defects pointed out by the complainant in the vehicle free of costs, we are of the view that it would adequately meet the justice if a further compensation of Rs.20,000/- is granted. 7. So far as the RP No. 904/ 2008 is concerned, counsel for the petitioner argued that the said manufacturer had no concern with the transaction and in the facts and circumstances we are prepared to accept this contention. In our view, fora below had erred in enfastening liability in regard to payment of compensation on the petitioner M/s. Ashok Leyland alongwith the dealer who had no role in the transaction. 8. In result and for the above-stated reasons, RP No. 904 / 2008 is allowed and the order and direction in regard payment of compensation by this petitioner is hereby set-aside. Since amount is claimed to have been deposited by the said petitioner in the District Forum, we direct the District Forum to refund to the petitioner, M/s. Ashok Leyland, forthwith. 9. As regards RP No. 789 / 2008, we partly allow the same in above terms and direct the petitioner M/s. Berkeley Automobiles, to pay a total sum of Rupees two lakh instead of Rupees three lakh as awarded by the Fora below to the respondent / complainant, Mr. Amar Singh, alongwith interest @6% p.a. with effect from the date of filing of the complaint till realisation. We are informed that petitioner, M/s. Berkeley Automobiles, has deposited a sum of Rs.1 lakh with the District Forum, the same shall be disbursed to the respondent / complainant, Mr. Amar Singh, forthwith. The petitioner, M/s. Berkeley Automobiles, is directed to pay the balance amount to the respondent / complainant, Mr. Amar Singh, within four weeks from today failing which the rate of interest shall enhanced to 9% p.a. from the date of default.