1.       Repeatedly called out.

No one appears for the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 is present.

The respondent no. 2 is being proceeded against ex parte.

2.       This revision petition has been filed under section 21(b) of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 28.02.2011 of the State Commission in appeal no. 2219 of 2008 arising out of the Order dated 31.10.2008 of the District Commission in complaint no. 209 of 2008.

3.       The complaint was made in 2008. The District Commission passed its Order in 2008. The State Commission passed its Order in 2011. The instant revision petition was filed before this Commission in 2011. We are now in 2022. A reading of the proceedings before this Commission reflects unfavourably on the way and manner the petition has been procrastinated from 2011 onwards.

4.       We have perused the material on record, including inter alia the Order dated 31.10.2008 of the District Commission, the impugned Order dated 28.02.2011 of the State Commission and the petition.

5.       The matter relates to ‘defect’ in a car purchased by the complainant i.e. the District & Sessions Judge, Gurgaon in his official capacity.         

The District Commission allowed the complaint, on contest, and for its reasons given, directed the manufacturer and the dealer (the petitioner and the respondent no. 2 herein) to replace the vehicle in question with a new one free from any mechanical / manufacturing defect and also to pay the complainant (the respondent no. 1 herein) Rs. 70,000/- spent by the complainant on the repair of the subject vehicle in the course of its use and Rs. 10,000/- on account of cost of litigation and compensation for the harassment caused.

6.       The manufacturer appealed before the State Commission. The State Commission inter alia noted that the appraisal made by the District Commission was also based amongst others on the report of an expert committee consisting of Executive Engineer, Sub Divisional Engineer (M) and two Junior Engineers of Mechanical Department of the PWD (B&R) and dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in it.

The manufacturer then preferred this instant revision petition before this Commission.

The award made by the District Commission was joint and several against the manufacturer and the dealer, but apparently the dealer did not choose to appeal before the State Commission. Nor has the dealer chosen to appear before this Commission though he has been arrayed as a respondent.

7.       Concurrent findings have been returned by the District Commission and the State Commission. The Orders of the two fora are a matter of record. No useful purpose will be served by reproducing them here all over again. Suffice is to say that on the face of it we find the Orders to be well-appraised and well-reasoned, we do not notice any jurisdictional error or material irregularity as may go to vitiate the findings, and we do not find any reason to make fresh de novo re-appreciation of the evidence in revision, we find no good ground for interference in the exercise of the revisional jurisdiction of this Commission.

As such, we have no hesitation in dismissing this petition in default in the absence of the petitioner manufacturer today.

8.       The revision petition no. 2047 of 2011 stands dismissed in default for lack of prosecution.

The Order of the District Commission, as upheld by the State Commission, shall be complied with forthwith, failing which the District Commission shall undertake execution, for ‘enforcement’ and for ‘penalty’, as per the law. 

9.       The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties in the revision petition and to their learned counsel as well as to the District Commission immediately. The stenographer is also requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately.