PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER Sri N. Anil Chandra Gowd, Complainant, is owner of Ford Ikon, which he had purchased in May, 2000 and was using the same. In May, 2009, the car stopped and it required some repairs. The Ford Company agreed to repair the car at a sum of Rs.22,000/-. However, the car could not be repaired properly. The daughter of the petitioner went for a test drive, but during the test drive, she found that the car was not properly repaired. The car was brought back to the opposite party without paying any amount. The car was not returned, but the opposite party asked them to pay a sum of Rs.1,20,000/-. The petitioner has not yet paid even Rs.22000/-. The petitioner represented that value of the car is Rs.1,50,000/- and the repair charges were on higher side. Complainant / petitioner filed a complaint before the District Forum. The District forum dismissed the complaint. 2. Being aggrieved, complainant / petitioner preferred an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the appeal filed by the petitioner and directed the opposite party to repair the vehicle, as promised in Ex.B1 and get the estimated amount whatsoever, as mentioned in Ex.B1 and take the vehicle within four weeks from the date of receipt of that order together with compensation and cost with the sum of Rs.20,000/-. 3. The grouse of the complainant is that he is deprived of the car for the last five years. The State Commission has already taken care of that and awarded Rs.20,000/- and there is contributory delay on the part of the petitioner as well as on the part of opposite party. The respondent / opposite party should have paid the amount immediately and got the car in whatsoever position. The workshop can also claim rent for parking the car in its workshop. However, we still think the order is passed in favour of the petitioner. He should approach the Executing court. The Executing Court is bound to follow the orders passed by the State Commission. The order of the State Commission cannot be faulted. It is also ordered that executing court will try to expedite the case as soon as possible and see that petitioner gets the car as per Ex. B1, immediately. 4. Consequently, the revision petition is dismissed.