This repair was carried out under warranty on or around 15 August 2002.

The applicant said that after the head gasket had blown on 30 December 2002, he incurred considerable costs in the hire of a replacement vehicle, towing charges, and taxis, in addition to the cost of the repairs which were carried out by Taylor's Garage Pty Ltd.

The applicant said that he was told by Taylor's Garage Pty Ltd s that the head could not be machined, and that the fuel pump was not working properly. He concluded that the new cylinder head supplied by the respondent was second hand, and that the engine was not rebuilt to Mitsubishi standards.

The applicant said that he then took the vehicle to Southern Trucks Pambula Pty Ltd where the pump was adjusted.

The respondent said that when the applicant returned the vehicle for its first service, he complained that the vehicle lacked power. The respondent told the applicant that it would need to remove the Cylinder Head in order to service the injectors.

The respondent said that when the cylinder head was removed, the thread of the head was inadvertently stripped. The cylinder head was replaced. This evidence was supported by the Statutory Declaration of Mr Witt.

The respondent said that it is its usual work practice to check all hoses, belts, lights and the cooling system prior to delivery of the vehicle to its owner.

It was the respondent's evidence that the damage to the vehicle was caused when the fan belt broke and not as a consequence of any work carried out by it.

I have considered the evidence given orally by and on behalf of each of the parties as well as the documentary evidence. I have been well placed to observe the demeanour of each of the witnesses. I have borne in mind the importance of my decision to the parties. Having done so, I have reached a firm conclusion in the matter, which is set out below.

The applicant's complaint is that cylinder head installed by the respondent was reconditioned, and that it should have lasted for 12 months.

The respondent has warranted the work for 12 months and unlimited kilometres.

I note that the respondent alleges that amongst other things the respondent failed to properly adjust the timing when the engine was first replaced.

From a variety of allegations in relation to the respondent's alleged unprofessional work, the applicant has invited the Tribunal to make the orders sought.

As in any jurisdiction the applicant bears the burden of onus of proof. He must persuade the Tribunal that, on the balance of probabilities he has established his case, and that the Tribunal should find in his favour.

I note that on the invoice for the original works it was recommended that the vehicle be serviced at 1,000kms.

I further note that when this service was carried out it was recommended that the vehicle be serviced again at 290,000kms, i.e after a further 5,000 kms.

There is no evidence before me which would indicate that the vehicle was serviced as recommended, even though it would have afforded an opportunity to detect a worn fan belt.

The evidence is that the vehicle travelled 909kms between the time of the initial work and its first service. It then travelled a further 16,238kms without any apparent problem, when the fan belt broke on 30 December 2002.

I note that the applicant did not give the respondent the opportunity to examine the vehicle at this time.

The evidence is clear that when the fan belt broke the engine overheated and the head cylinder cracked. There is no evidence before me to indicate that this occurred as a consequence of the respondent's work.

Any other evidence in relation to the specifications of the cylinder head, is not supported by independent expert evidence and in any event is not, in the circumstances, relevant.

I am not satisfied that the grounds required to make the orders sought have been established.

I order that the application brought by Mr Watling against Mr Mazza and Ms Mazza T/as Penrith Engine Services be dismissed.