1. The version of the complainant is that he paid Rs.8000/- for repairing and changing the parts of his Honda Car but the respondent neither has repaired his vehicle nor has returned back the payment of Rs.8000/-. On complainant petition, a notice was issued by the Consumer Council to the respondent on 18-10-2011. The respondent (Zulfiqar Shah) personally appeared and sought adjournment for written reply on 21-10-2011 but he submitted the written reply through his counsel on 04-11-2011 and put up counter claim of Rs.12260/-. The matter could not be settled between the parties before the District Consumer Protection Council. Hence, this reference.
2. The respondent has been issued repeated notices but he has not appeared in the court inspite of his service. So, he has been proceeded Ex-Parte against.
3. After hearing the arguments and perusal of the record, it has been observed that complainant (Habib Akram Hashmi) moved an application Ex-P1 and notice was issued to the respondent Ex-P2.
4. The respondent has submitted his written reply Ex-P3 (2 pages) and controverter and negated the whole version of the complainant and has put up counter claim of Rs.12260/-. The respondent has not appeared in this court and submitted any written reply. Whereas, the complainant has placed on record documents Ex-P1to 3 which fully support his version that he paid Rs.8000/- to the respondent for repairing of his vehicle. The respondent neither repaired his vehicle nor returned the amount of Rs. 8000/-. The claim of the respondent of Rs.12260/- is a counter blast and has not been proved through any independent evidence. Even, the respondent himself has not appeared in the court in support of his claim. Therefore, reference/ complaint in hand is allowed in favour of the complainant and against the respondent for Rs.8000/-. The complainant is also held entitled to recover damages of Rs.20,000/- total Rs.28,000/- from the respondent. File be put up for the execution of the order on 16-07-2012.