This first appeal has been filed by the appellant Managing Director Volvo Auto India Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. against the order dated 23.07.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Tamil Nadu, (in short ‘the State Commission’) passed in CC No.119/2014. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent/complainant purchased a Volvo Sedan car market name Volvo S60 –T6 Red- AWD through the 2nd opposite party/appellant No.2 who is the authorized dealer of the 1st opposite party/appellant No.1 for a sum of Rs.35,75,000/- on 24.10.2011. On 29.04.2014, the vehicle was being driven on the road, suddenly all the Air bags got deployed without any cause or accident and engine stopped in the middle of the road. There was no traffic on the road at that time and a major accident got averted. The complainant informed the opposite party about the incident over phone and waited at the site for more than 5 hours anticipating the assistance from the opposite parties, but the opposite parties did not turn up and did not send anybody for assistance. However, some time later the engine started and the car was taken home. The complainant requested the opposite parties to inspect the car and to give report, but the opposite parties were not inclined to inspect the car at Salem where the car was parked and insisted that the car be brought to their service centre at Coimbatore for inspection which the complainant could not do in view of the defective condition of the car and the opposite parties confirmed that they will not inspect the car at Salem. 3. Aggrieved by this act of opposite parties/appellants, the respondent/complainant filed a consumer complaint bearing No.119 of 2014 before the State Commission. The State Commission passed an ex-parte order dated 23.07.2015 and allowed the consumer complaint as under:- “19. In the result, the complaint is partly allowed and the opposite parties are directed jointly and severally to refund a sum of Rs.35,75,000/- towards cost of the vehicle to the complainant on taking back the defective vehicle from the complainant and to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for mental agony and to pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- as costs. Time for compliance: Two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order and in case of default to comply with the order, the amounts shall carry interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of default till compliance.” 4. Hence the present appeal. 5. Heard the leaned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The learned counsel for the appellants stated that there is a delay of 14 days in filing the present appeal and the same may be condoned on the ground mentioned in the application for condonation of delay. 6. It was further argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that no notice was received by them. However, the State Commission has treated the service as complete and has proceeded ex-parte against appellants/opposite parties. It has been directed to refund the price of the car to the complainant and to take the vehicle back from the complainant. He further stated that Volvo is a brand name in manufacturing of the car and type of manufacturing defect as being alleged by the complainant is not likely to be present in a Volvo car. It was the responsibility of the complainant to bring the car to the service station. The State Commission has passed the order of refund without any expert report. The State Commission was free to order any expert to inspect the car and to give the expert opinion. Moreover, as the appellants were not represented in the complaint case, the appellants could not put forward their case before the State Commission and an adverse order has been passed. The learned counsel further stated that the appellants have a good case on merit and would definitely defend the complaint by filing the written statement and by arguing the matter. It was prayed that the order of the State Commission be set aside and opportunity be granted to the appellants to file the written statement in the complaint case so that the complaint be decided on merit. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the appellants relied upon the following judgment:- Haresh Rajaldas Makhija Vs. Ravi Vaswani, Civil Appeal No.-8158 of 2009, decided on December, 04.2009 (SC), wherein the following has been observed:- “9. In our view, even though the object of the Act is to ensure expeditious adjudication of complaints filed by the consumers and the Consumer Foras established under the Act are expected to act in furtherance of the object of the legislation, they cannot decide the complaints, etc. without ensuring compliance of the basics of the natural justice. Like any other quasi judicial body/authority, the Consumer Fora are bound to comply with the rule of audi alteram partem. Since the notice sent to the appellant was returned with the postal remark “not claimed”, the District forum could not have presumed the service of notice and proceeded ex parte. By no stretch of imagination, the said remark given by the postman could be treated as the appellant’s refusal to accept the notice.” 7. Moreover, it was argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the vehicle was purchased by a Trust and Trust cannot be considered a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act 1986 as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Pratibha Pratisthan & Ors. Vs. Manager, Canara Bank and Ors., (2017) 3 SCC 712. It has been held that:- “5. On a plain and simple reading of all above provisions of the Act it is clear that a trust is not a person and therefore not a consumer. Consequently, it cannot be a complainant and cannot file a consumer dispute under the provisions of the Act.” 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/complainant stated that on 29.04.2014, the front air bags suddenly deployed while driving the car and engine came to a halt though there was no accident or collission with any other object. The opposite parties were informed, however, they did not attend to the vehicle. They could have very easily sent the team to inspect the car at Salem, however, opposite parties insisted to bring the car to their service station at Coimbatore which was not possible for the complainant. Being aggrieved, the consumer complaint was filed. Inspite of the service of the notice, the opposite parties chose not to appear and to contest the case. In this situation, the State Commission had no option, but to proceed ex-parte and to pass an ex-parte order and the same has been passed. The manufacturing defect is clearly there and no expert report was required for this type of manufacturing defect which was self-evident. If the security system in such a costly car does not operate properly, it will definitely be treated as a manufacturing defect and only remedy is to replace the car or to get the refund. The State Commission has ordered for the refund of the total price paid by the complainant. 9. I have given a thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the material on record. The State Commission in its order have observed that the opposite parties remained absent and the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 were set ex-parte on 06.11.2014. Copy of the order dated 06.11.2014 has not been filed by either party in this revision petition. Therefore, on what ground, the State Commission proceeded ex-parte is not clear. However, the appellants have clearly stated in the revision petition, which is supported by the affidavit that no notice was received by them. Be that as it may, one thing is clear that the appellants have not got any opportunity for putting forward their case or defence before the State Commission. As the stakes in the case are high, I am of the view that the matter should be decided on merit after hearing all the parties in the matter. Accordingly, the order dated 23.07.2015 is set aside subject to appellants paying a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- (rupees three lakhs only) to the respondent/complainant by way of demand draft before the State Commission. Four weeks’ time is granted to the appellants to file the written statement before the State Commission and the State Commission shall take written statement on record if filed within a period of four weeks from the date of this order and the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- (rupees three lakhs only) is paid to the complainant. The State Commission then to proceed to decide the case on merits as per the procedure laid down in the consumer Protection Act, 1986. Parties to appear before the State Commission on 10.07.2018. | 
