Heard. 2. Petitioner/complainant had filed a complaint before District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gurgaon (for short, istrict Forum seeking the following reliefs ; he complainant therefore, respectfully prays that the OP may kindly be ordered to remove all the defects pointed out to them in scores of letters details of which have also been reproduced, copies of which have also been enclosed with this complaint and in the complaint and to provide new Gear Box, seats etc. so as to make the vehicle road worthy, free from all defects as the complaint had been lodged with the suppliers well within the warranty period. In the alternative the OP may kindly be ordered to replace the vehicle with another Brand New Vehicle free from any defects. The OP may also kindly be burdened with heavy costs amounting Rs.50,000/- on account of harassment and mental agony caused to the complainant by the OP. 3. District Forum after hearing counsel for the parties, vide its order dated 18.3.2003, disposed of the complaint with the observation that he matter involved in the complaint required elaborate evidence and this Fora being having the summary procedure is unable to express its findings. However, the complainant can agitate the matter before Civil Court, if so advised. With these observations, this complaint is hereby filed. 4. Aggrieved by the order of District Forum, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission, Chandigarh. State Commission vide its order dated 13.2.2009, disposed of the same and observed as under ; e have gone through the impugned order and taken into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and are of the view that at the time of dismissing the complaint, the District Forum has not taken any adverse inference, rather advised the complainant to approach the Civil Court, taking into consideration the issue involved in the matter. Therefore, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order of the District Forum and same does not call for any interference by us in the appeal. However, it is made clear that complainant would be entitled to the benefits of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for the period during which the proceedings remain pending in this Commission. No merit. Dismissed. 5. Order dated 13.2.2009 of the State Commission was challenged by the petitioner by way of Revision Petition No.1877 of 2009 before this Commission. On 10.12.2009, this Commission passed the following order ; earned counsel for the petitioner and respondents present. Alleging, deficiency against Manufacturer and Dealer with Tata Sumo vehicle purchased by petitioner on 22.8.2000, a consumer complaint was deleted from proceeding. Allegedly for want of proper service on the manufacturer, the proceeding went ex-parte against them. District Forum in conclusive finding, unsuited complainant/petitioner on the ground that matter required elaborate evidence, which was not available in summary proceedings and hence, advised relegation of the matter to civil court. State Commission too, when finding of District Forum was challenged, affirmed the views held by District Forum for relegating the matter to Civil Court. Learned counsel appearing for petitioner citing celebrated decision in the matter of Dr.J.J.Merchant and Ors. Vs. Shrinath Chaturvedi (2002) 6 SCC 635, submits that even though petitioner was locked in the proceeding for about six years before State Commission, the matter for no good reason, was relegated to Civil Court. Issue raised by petitioner merits consideration and accordingly, while setting aside finding of State Commission, matter is remitted to State Commission to afford adequate opportunity to the parties to address the core issue and render a finding afresh. Parties are directed to appear before State Commission on 22.2.2010. Revision petition disposed of in the above terms. 6. After remand of the matter, State Commission, vide its impugned order dated 16.6.2010 observed that ; he gear box having defect pointed out by the complainant was replaced by the opposite parties prior to the filing of the complaint to the satisfaction of the complainant and the same cannot be now termed as a manufacturing defect in the vehicle as is evident from the Job Cards of various dates which reflect that the vehicle was received by the complainant after due service to his entire satisfaction and every time the vehicle was serviced as per the specifications mentioned in the Service Manual by doing necessary repairs like change of oil, change of gear oil, air filter, tightening of screws etc. without there being any complaint of defect in the gear box in the subsequent Job Cards after it was replaced with a new one. It is also pertinent to mention here that it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant-complainant that the complainant is a regular purchaser of Tata vehicles for carrying on his day-to-day business. If the submission of the counsel of the complainant is taken as true, in that eventuality it is taken that the complainant was fully satisfied with the services provided by Tata Company to the complainant after the purchase of his other vehicle as well. Thus, from the facts and circumstances of the case, no case of eficiency of serviceis made out against the opposite parties and the complaint deserve to be dismissed. 7. Thus, as evident from the record, prayer of the petitioner was to provide a new Gear Box. As apparent from the impugned order, prior to the filing of the complaint, respondent has already replaced the Gear Box to the satisfaction of the petitioner. Since, Gear Box has already been replaced even prior to filing of the complaint, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order. 8. Consequently, we do not find any merit in this petition and same is hereby dismissed. The complaint filed by the petitioner before the District Forum also stand dismissed. 9. No order as to cost.