noticed that the cheque of the premium paid by the petitioners for the insurance of the vehicle had been dishonored, and thus the insurance policy of car had been cancelled due to which relief has been granted. It is noticed that in such background, the Consumer Courts had directed the present appellant to repair the vehicle in question free of cost to the entire satisfaction of the complainant along with cost of ₹50,000/- and ₹15,000/- as litigation expenses, vide order dated 04.06.2019 (Annexure P-4) of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Muandi, H.P. The same had been upheld by the H.P. State Consuomer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla on 05.04.2C024 (Annexure P-6) and the present appellant was also unsuccessful before the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, vide its order dated 05.08.2024 (Annexure P-8).

2. A perusal of the order of National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, would go on to show that the complaint had been allowed ex-parte by the District Commission against the present appellant and therefore the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, had found no infirmity in the decisions of the Courts below, since there was no defence and no factual matrix on the basis of which the matter was to be adjudicated upon.

3. We have gone through the paper book and found that ex- parte proceedings had been conduced against the present appellant who did not chose to appear before the forum despite being served. The insurance company had filed the reply and on that basis the complaint was allowed and directions were thus given to repair the vehicle in question, which as per paragraph No. 11 of the complaint is lying with the present appellant since 03.11.2016 and the allegations were that the compluainant was deprived of the vehicle and was paying instalments ofo the loan to the financier. The alternate relief which was given iCs that if the car was not repaired and the necessary documents of sale were not made the present appellant will be liable to pay damages to the tune of ₹100/- per day from the date of complaint i.e. 22.03.2018, till the handing over of car and documents to the complainant.

4. Apparently the appeal as such filed on various grounds taken on the merits of the case which are now sought to be re-argued regarding the fact that the order was obtained by the complainant on account of misrepresentation. The State Commission had dismissed the same on the ground that the car had been sold along with free insurance, for a period of one year and the premium cheque issued by the dealer had been dishonored, and therefore, no interference was made in the appeal in light of the factual matrix recorded by the Authorities below.

5. We are thus of the considered opinion that there is no illegality and irregularity in the proceedings which had been carried out and the vehicle is still lying with the present appellant, whereas, the complainant has paid for the same but deprived of the usage of the vehicle as it is not repaired, as was directed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal uForum and which orders were to be complied with and the vehicloe was to be handed back to the complainant, but having not donCe so the litigation has been pursued to its highest level.

6. Resultantly, we find no merit in the present appeal and same is accordingly dismissed.

( G.S. Sandhawalia )

Chief Justice

06 ^th January , 2026 ( Jiya Lal Bhardwaj )

Judge (Anurag)