JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. This order shall decide the above detailed two revision petitions filed by General Manager (Mktg. Dvn), Ashok Leyland Ltd., manufacturer, OP1 and Gautam Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Dealer, OP2. I have heard both the counsel for the petitioners. Nobody appeared on behalf of Gopal Sharma, the complainant, in this case. The complainant was served through registered AD Card. On 07.05.2013, Sh.Subrata Dass, Advocate, appeared on behalf of the complainant. He did not file his Vakalatnama, however, his presence was marked. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the Complainant is not interested in pursuing this case. 2. The facts of this care are these. Mr.Gopal Sharma, the complainant, purchased a Truck/Chasis on 20.08.2002 for a sum of Rs.6,78,916/-. Thereafter, he got the body of the truck built. The grievance of the complainant is that within a month of purchase of the chasis, the engine of the aforesaid vehicle, started giving trouble. The complainant sent first notice in this regard to Ashok Leyland Ltd., on 09.04.2003. The complainant also gave the first report for failure at odometer reading of 36248kms, on 15.05.2003. The Deputy General Manager (Legal) of Ashok Leyland Ltd., who was arrayed as OP3 vide communication dated 25.11.2004 proved on the record as Annexure-E, stated that the first engine failure was reported only on 15.05.2003, after the vehicle had covered 36248 kms. It was further explained that one piston, two liner rings set and big end bearing had been replaced. Second notice was sent on 02.09.2003 by the complainant. The complainant sent third notice dated 31.01.2004. In his letter, Annexure-E, the Deputy General Manager (Legal) admitted and stated that the vehicle was got checked on 26.04.2004 when third piston exhaust valve was changed without charging any money from the complainant though by that time warranty period was over. The warranty expired on 22.02.2004. On 29.03.2004, the vehicle was attended at Spark Automobiles. On 03.04.2004, the complainant recorded satisfaction and withdrew his notice. On 09.04.2004 and 14.09.2004, two separate notices were sent to the petitioner as reply to Annexure-E. 3. A complaint was filed before the District Forum on 17.01.2009. The District Forum dismissed the complaint on 20.08.2010, on merits. 4. However, the State Commission placed reliance on Ex Annexure-E and directed the OPs to replace the engine of the vehicle with a new one within one month and if, for any reason, it is not possible to replace the engine, to pay money equivalent to the price of the engine, in question, together with interest @ 9% per annum, from the date of the complaint to the date of realisation. It also awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages to the complainant for pecuniary loss and Rs.10,000/- on account of litigation expenses. It was further directed that all the 3 OPs shall be jointly and severally liable to satisfy this order. 5. I have heard both the learned counsel for Ashok Leyland Ltd. and Gautam Automobiles Ltd. The principal argument urged by learned counsel for the petitioners was that this case is barred by time under Section 24-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. They submitted that the warranty in this case expired on 22.2.2004. This complaint should have been filed till 21.2.2006. However, it was filed on 17.1.2009. There is a huge delay. It was pointed out that no application for condonation of delay was moved before the District Forum. 6. Both the learned counsel have left no stone unturned in misleading the Commission regarding this point. A doubt cropped up in my mind and this Commission summoned the original file for 26.2.2014. The file of District Forum clearly goes to show that the complainant had filed the first consumer complaint No. 32 of 2005 on 31.1.2005. The following order was passed by the District Forum on 03.01.2009:- s such, taking into consideration the rival contention and after considering the facts as pleaded in the application, the application is allowed in the interest of justice. Thereby the complainant is permitted to withdraw the present complaint (as apparently there appears formal defect of jurisdiction on the face of complaint) with liberty to move afresh complaint before competent Forum of jurisdiction, if so advised and permissible under law. In the circumstances of the case, the application for withdrawal of complaint is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. The original documents filed with the complaint be returned to the complainant against proper receipt. The learned counsel for the parties have undertaken to collect the certified copy of this order from the office, free of cost, as per rules. The file after due completion, be consigned to record room. 7. Both the petitioners have not come to the court with clean hands. Their case deserves dismissal at the very threshold. 8. The second submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner was that the complainant is not a consumer. They could not elaborate this point. The complainant purchased the vehicle from them. The petitioners are service providers and the complainant is consumer. This submission was made merely for the sake of cavil. 9. Third submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner was that in absence of expert evidence, the case of the petitioner does not stand proved. The requirement of Section 13(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 was never complied with. 10. Res Ipsa Loquitur, the things speak for themselves, is applicable in this case. The engine is not working from day one. The complainant has suffered the harassment and mental agony since August, 2002. More than a decade has elapsed. The fact of the admission comes out from horse mouth itself, in reply Annexure-E, which was made the basis of the judgment of State Commission. The said document cannot be pushed under a carpet. That is the crucial evidence, heart of this knotty problem and main pillar of this case around which the whole case revolves. 11. No other point was urged before me. Both the petitions filed by the petitioners are hereby dismissed. These are frivolous and vexatious revision petitions, therefore, I dismiss the same with costs of Rs.10,000/- on each Petitioner/opposite party, under Section 26 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. These amounts be paid to the complainant, within 90 days, from the date of this order, otherwise, it will carry interest @10% per annum. The case was filed in the year 2002. The grievance of the complainant has yet not been redressed. Consequently, it is ordered that the order of the State Commission be complied with within 90 days, from the date of receipt of this order, otherwise, it will carry penalty of Rs.250/- per day, jointly and severally.