S.A. Kader, J. - This is a complaint under Section 17 read with Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act.

2. The complainant is the owner of a Mitsubishi Canter Van bearing registration No. TN-07-9297 used as a public carrier. On 8.6.1991 the vehicle met with an accident near Salem and suffered extensive damages. It was entrusted with the opposite party for repairs. A note was prepared on 13.6.1991 by the opposite party signed by its representative and countersigned by the driver of the complainant's vehicle noting down the damaged parts and the items missing. The Insurance Company was informed of the accident and a surveyor inspected the vehicle in the workshop of the opposite party and assessed the loss. The complainant requested the opposite party to raise the bill for repairs directly on the insurer and there was some correspondence on that matter. To his surprise, the complainant received a letter dated 22.10.1991 from the opposite party stating that the gear box did not pertain to the vehicle, that the gear box assembly, the clutch disc and the clutch cover assembly release bearing were missing and that the hand brake unit was also missing. According to the complainant the opposite party or its servant have meddled with the vehicle and caused the loss and change of gear box, while the vehicle was in the custody of the opposite party. The opposite party is, therefore, bound to meet the costs for providing the original gear box and other missing parts, which according to the prevailing market price worked out at Rs. 1,58,132/-. The opposite party till the filing of the complaint has not carried out any repairs as a result of which the complainant has been deprived of the use of the vehicle and he has suffered loss of earning to the tune of Rs. 2,51,170.40. He charged the opposite party with culpable negligence and deficiency of service, and claimed compensation in the sum of Rs.4,09,302.70.

3. The claim is resisted by the opposite party. It is contended that the matter required elaborate trial and hearing and this Commission should not, therefore, entertain this complaint. According to the opposite party the vehicle met with the accident on 8.6.1991 was brought to its workshop by 18.6.1991 by towing. A note was prepared immediately on a peripheral inspection of the vehicle indicating the parts damaged and repairs to be carried out. The vehicle was not at that time dismantled and the damaged or missing parts within the vehicle could not be determined. The note regarding the damages and missing items was only as to patent parts and not to latent parts. As the complainant wanted the bill to be drawn against the insurer, the sanction of the insurance company had to be approved and this approval was not received ti1110.2.1992. As an adjustment to the complainant the opposite party started dismantling the vehicle around second week of September'91, since the complainant required the chassis to be replaced. On starting assembling the vehicle on 17.10.1991 after the receipt of the new chassis from the factory, it was found that the clutch assembly and hand brake assembly were missing and the gear box was an old damaged one which did not pertain to this vehicle. According to the opposite party the vehicle was on the Highway between the date of the accident on 8.6.1991 and 13.6.1991 when it was towed to the workshop of the opposite party and anything could have been happened to the vehicle at that time. It is the further contention of the opposite party that the complainant's driver of the vehicle and the mechanic were seen with some other persons lurking around the vehicle at the opposite party's premises, suggesting thereby that these parts could have been stolen by them. As the complainant was reluctant to bear the expenses for the missing parts, the repairs could not be carried out. The opposite party has given a Police complaint and an investigation was pending. There was no act of omission or commission on the part of the