1 2026:HHC:2306 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA LPA No. 784 of 2025 Decided on: 06 th January , 2026 ________________________________________________________ Ganesha Motors Pvt. Ltd. and another ....Appellants Versus Amit Kumar Guleria since deceased through LRs and another ...Respondents ________________________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, Judge Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the appellants: Mr. Tara Singh Chauhan, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Surya Chauhan, Advocate. G.S. Sandhawalia, Chief Justice (Oral) In the present Letters Patent Appeal the consideration is sought of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby, he dismissed the writ petition while upholding the orders passed by Consumer Courts from District level till the National Consumers Disputes Redressal Commission, by holding that there are concurrent findings against the present petitioners, which could not be demonstrated to be perverse or out of record. Learned Single Judge 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2 2026:HHC:2306 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, Mandi, H.P. The same had been upheld by the H.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Shimla on 05.04.2024 (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 3 2026:HHC:2306 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 complainant was deprived of the vehicle and was paying instalments of the loan to the financier. The alternate relief which was given is 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 4 2026:HHC:2306 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 Forum and which orders were to be complied with and the vehicle was to be handed back to the complainant, but having not done 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 ) (Anurag) Judge