VIJAY SINGH vs Sohan singh

-FOR the reasons mentioned in the application for restoration, the application for restoration is allowed.

WE have also heard the petitioner on merits. The petitioner is aggrieved by the dismissal order by both the Fora below.

The allegations of the petitioner in brief are that on 7. 9. 2000, the vehicle No. DNH 2387 broken down due to defect in the fan belt. It was handed over to the respondent for repair on 7. 9. 2007. Since it was not repaired, petitioner''s son went to the garage of the respondent. He found that the whole engine of the car had been opened without the instructions of the appellant. The respondent handed over a list of 40 parts required to be replaced. The respondent had removed vital and costly spare parts from the vehicle and also damaged the dicky, bonnet, desk board, etc. FIR was also lodged. Complaint was filed for directions to respondent to pay Rs. 2. 00 lakh as compensation and a sum of Rs. 5,000 as cost of litigation.

THE respondent resisted the claim. It was alleged that the engine of the vehicle got seized due to overheating of the engine in absence of working of fan belt. The petitioner was advised that the vehicle could not be put in working condition. The vehicle was towed to the workshop. After cooling, the engine was opened in the presence of the appellant and his son and a list of damaged parts was prepared by the son of the complainant in his own handwriting. Both, the petitioner and his son, went to Kashmere Gate with the respondent, satisfied themselves about the rates of the parts for replacement of certain damaged parts. The respondent denied any deficiency in service on his part. There was no dispute about the fact that the vehicle was broken down due to defect in the fan belt of the vehicle and it was towed to the garage of the respondent, as it could not be repaired at the place of break down.

SEEING the probability in the light of the conduct of the petitioner/complainant and the circumstances that the vehicle was towed, engine was opened, the parts were purchased after the list of the damaged parts was prepared by the son of the petitioner, inquiry was made about the rates of the parts by the petitioner along with his son, all these would indicate that the Fora below was absolutely justified for, in all probability, there was no deficiency on the part of the respondent. The dispute arose only due to unwillingness to pay the service charges. In view of the concurrent finding, there does not appear any infirmity, irregularity in the impugned order (s) to enable us to exercise our jurisdiction under Clause (b) of Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act. Since there is no force in this revision petition as aforesaid, it is dismissed accordingly. R. P. dismissed.