Aggrieved by the order dated 21.3.2005 passed by Andhra Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Hyderabad (in short, ‘the State Commission’) in complaint case No. 11 of 2000, the original opposite party No. 1-M/s Eicher Motors Limited has filed the present appeal. By the impugned order, the State Commission has partly allowed the complaint filed by the respondent-S.V.V. Satyanarayana and has directed the opposite parties jointly and severally to rectify the defects of Eicher vehicle of the complainant within a period of six weeks from the date of the order, besides awarding a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh with the stipulation that the amount shall be paid within a period of six weeks, failing which, it shall carry interest @9% per annum till payment. While doing so, the State Commission has also awarded cost of Rs.5000/- in favour of the complainant. We have heard Mr. Sorabh Sharma, learned counsel representing the appellant and Mrs. K. Radha, learned counsel representing the respondent No.1-complainant but had not the advantage of hearing the say of respondent No. 2 as no one appears for him at the time of hearing of the appeal. The complaint before the State Commission was filed by the respondent-complainant alleging manufacturing defects in the 6 ton pay load truck manufactured by the appellant, which he purchased at a total price of Rs.5,36,711/- in February, 1999. Soon after the purchase of the vehicle, he found that there were several defects in the braking system, as a result of which, the vehicle used to abnormally heat up after short driving and even the consumption of the fuel was excessive and not as per the proclaimed standard. The complaint was resisted by the appellant-manufacturer denying any manufacturing defect but it was admitted that some defects were brought to their notice and the same were rectified to the satisfaction of the complainant. It would appear that a report of one Mechanic, namely Bokka Rama Krishna, who had inspected the vehicle in order to find out the defects in the vehicle, was filed on record. On consideration of the same, the State Commission came to the finding that it was not possible to hold that the vehicle suffered from any manufacturing defect but there were some defects in the vehicle, which were repairable defects. Accordingly, the State Commission decided the complaint in the above manner. Learned counsel for the appellant would assail the order, primarily on the ground that the order so far as it has directed the payment of compensation of Rs. 1 lakh to the complainant, is legally unsustainable because the prayer granted goes beyond relief claimed by the complainant himself. The complainant had claimed the following reliefs in his complaint:- “7) Relief(s) The complainant, therefore, prays that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the Opposite Parties: (a) to replace the EICHER vehicle of the complainant with a new one or in the alternative to refund the value of the vehicle i.e. Rs.5,36,711/-. (b) to refund the amount of Rs.3,396.50 paid by the complainant to the 2nd opposite party towards value of the spare parts during the warranty period: (c) to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation for the loss of income suffered by the complainant for non functioning of the vehicle. (d) to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as compensation for mental agony suffered by the complainant (e) to award costs of complaint and (f) to grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon’ble State Commission may deem fit and proper.” From the above extract, it would appear that the main relief of the complainant was for replacement of the vehicle in question or in the alternative for refund of the entire price of the vehicle, which has not been granted by the State Commission because the State Commission did not find any manufacturing defect or any such defect in the vehicle in question, which required its replacement or refund of the price of the vehicle. Accordingly, the State Commission gave directions to the appellant to rectify the defects by repairing the same in a time bound manner. Besides that, the complainant had claimed a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- as compensation for loss of earning, which too has not been granted by the State Commission. The complainant had claimed a sum of Rs. 50,000/- for mental agony suffered by him on account of frequent defects, which occurred in the vehicle in question and against this particular relief, the State Commission has granted a sum of Rs. 1 lakh by observing as under:- “Taking into consideration the aforementioned facts and documentary evidence that the vehicle was under warranty and repeatedly went for repairs, we are of the considered opinion that there is deficiency of service on the part of the opposite parties. Although the complainant has filed the affidavit of mechanic, he has not established that the defects were irreparable and that there is a manufacturing defect in the vehicle. Hence we are not inclined to direct the opposite parties to replace the vehicle with a new one. However the complainant has been put to much hardship and he was deprived of the use of the vehicle we direct the opposite parties to rectify the defects within a period of six months from today and also award damages of Rs. 1 lakh for mental agony.” We, therefore, find merits in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the compensation granted to the respondent-complainant on account of mental agony and harassment exceeds the relief claimed in the complaint. We are, therefore, inclined to modify the order of the State Commission only so far as it has awarded a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh towards mental agony and harassment to Rs.50,000/- as claimed by the complainant in his complaint. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed and the order of the State Commission is modified only to the extent that the figure of Rs.1 lakh appearing in the fourth line of the last para of the order impugned shall be substituted with the figure of Rs.50,000/-, all other stipulations made in the order remaining unchanged. No order as to costs in these proceedings.