JUDGMENT - G.G. LONEY, President:---In this complaint, the complainant alleged that he had purchased a mini-truck for a consideration of Rs. 3,00,016.36 of Swaraj Mazda Make from opposite party No. 1, a local dealer at Nasik. The complainant had raised finance from Sundaram Finances Ltd., Madras to purchase the aforesaid truck. According to the complainant, the opposite party No. 1 represented at that time to the complainant that if he purchased the said truck, there will be no difficulty in future, as all the spare parts of Swaraj Mazda truck are available in his shop. The complainant alleged that relying on the representation made by opposite party No. 1, he purchased the truck as mentioned above. Thereafter, the complainant started using it. The complaintant further alleged that he purchased the truck for his self-employment and to earn his livelihood. Unfortunately, on 16-5-1990, the said truck was involved in an accident. The complainant further alleged that in order to settle his insurance claim as regards the said mind-truck, he was required to repair the said truck and, therefore, the spare parts were required to be purchased from the shop of the opposite party No. 1. The complainant alleged that O.P. No. 1 promised to render the necessary service to the complainant of making available the required spare parts to put the said truck in order and also assured that the said truck will be completely repaired within 25 days. Accordingly, on 21-5-1990, the said truck was given to opposited party No. 1 for repairs. The complainant alleged that he obtained from one Aman Engineering of Nasik the estimate of repairs and it was submitted to the Insurance Company for purpose of his accident claim. The complainant further alleged that the opposite party No. 1 demanded Rs. 83,000/- towards the supply of required spare parts for the repairs of the said truck and accordingly, on 31-5-1990, the complainant paid the said amount vide Demand Draft No. 580582 drawn on State Bank of India. The complainant further alleged that even though the complainant paid the amounts to O.P. No. 1 for spare parts as demanded by him, the spare parts were not supplied to him. According to complainant, the opposite party failed to repair his truck within 25 days as promised and the truck remained with the opposite party No. 1 for over a period of 12 months. According to complainant, the opposite party failed to repair his truck within 25 days as promised and the truck remained with the opposite party No. 1 for over a period of 12 months. The complainant alleged that the service rendered by the opposite party was totally deficient as a result of which he has been put to considerable loss and claimed Rs. 2,41,000/- towards the payment of interest over his loan amount and the amount of Rs. 83,000/- paid for the spare parts, insurance etc. 2. A notice under section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act was issued to the opposite party dated 14-5-1993, which was received by both the opposite parties. However, none appeared on the appointed date. Hence this Commission proceeded ex-parte against both the opposite parties on 14-7-1993. Despite receipt of notice none of the opposite parties filed any written version. 3. The allegations made in the complaint are duly supported by the affidavit duly sworn in by complainant. The claim is also supported by various documents showing the ownership of the complainant as regards the said truck and the amount paid by the complainant to the opposite party for purchase of spare parts. The complainant has filed receipt dated 31-5-1991 for payment of Rs. 83,000/- to the opposite party. He has also filed the credit bills showing the sale of various spare parts to the complainant for the repairs of truck in question. Similarly, the complainant has also filed the estimate prepared by Aman Engineering Works for the repairs of the truck and quotation supplied by the opposite party of various spare parts. Thus, we find that, the complainant has proved his allegation. It is amply proved that the opposite party No. 1 failed to render the necessary service as promised despite the payment made by the complainant for a period of 12 months. In our view, the opposite party No. 1 has been totally negligent in rendering the promised service to the complainant as a result of which the complainant has been put to irrepairable loss of income as well as the loss on account of payment of interest on a loan obtained to purchase the truck in question. 4. The complainant has claimed in his complaint in para 7 the loss suffered by him. In Clause A and B, complainant has claimed interest of Rs. 82,000/- and Rs. 4. The complainant has claimed in his complaint in para 7 the loss suffered by him. In Clause A and B, complainant has claimed interest of Rs. 82,000/- and Rs. 19,711/- respectively towards the loan obtained by him for the purchase of the mini-truck and against amount of advance paid to O.P. No. 1 for a purchase of spare parts. In our view, the complainant claimed for the payment of interest over the amount paid to opposite party No. 1 for repairs of the truck amounting to Rs. 19,411 is justified. However, the claim of complainant for the payment of Rs. 82,000/- for the purchase of truck is not justified and hence rejected. However, we find that the claim of the complainant in Clauses C, D, E F are justifed. Similarly, the complainant has claimed Rs. 1,20,000/- towards the compensation for the delay in repairing the said truck. It is also obvious that the complainant has been put to loss due to the delay in the repairs of the truck. However, we find that the amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- is not supported by any material on record. At the same time, it is true that the complainant suffered a loss due to delay in repairing the said truck. We therefore, quantify the loss suffered by the complainant at Rs. 25,000/-. Thus, we find that the complainant is entitled to a total claim of Rs. 65,040. We do not find that the complainant has any claim against the opposite party No. 2. Therefore, the claim for compensation against the opposite party No. 2 is hereby rejected. Hence, we pass the following order :- ORDER 5. The complaint is partly allowed. The O.P. No. 1 is directed to pay to the complainant Rs. 65,040/- within 30 days from the receipt of this order failing which the aforesaid amount shall carry interest at the rate of 18% p.a. The opposite party also should pay to the complainant Rs. 500/- as cost of this complaint. The rest of the complainant's claims against the Opposite Party No. 1 are rejected. Claim allowed in part.