Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2 It is observed that though notice has been served on Respondent No.2, no one appears on its behalf. The facts of the case are that the Complainant/Respondent No.1, who is a Member of District Council, Barmer, purchased a Maruti 800 car (manufactured by the Petitioner herein) for her personal use on 25.4.2011 from Respondent No.2 dealer for a consideration of ₹2,31,974/- with free service for three years. Within 8 to 10 days of its purchase, the car started emanating abnormal noise and was giving an average of just 10 Km. Complainant informed Respondent No.2, who accepted that there was manufacturing defect in the car but demanded charges for its repair and service. On Complainant’s stating that the car had a free service of three years, Respondent No.2 refused to repair/service/replace the car. Being aggrieved, a Complaint was filed before the District Forum. The District Forum allowed the Complaint and directed both the manufacturer and the dealer to pay a sum of ₹2,31,974/- to the Complainant within one month along with a sum of ₹5,000/- as compensation and interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of order till realization. ₹1,000/- was awarded as costs. State Commission dismissed the Appeal preferred by the manufacturer and upheld the order passed by the District Forum. Hence, this Revision Petition. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that the State Commission has passed the judgment without giving any valid reasons and has also drawn my attention to the impugned order wherein the State Commission has observed that “if there is any manufacturing defect in the 3 car, the Petitioner, who was Appellant before the State Commission, could also submit a report and state that there was no manufacturing defect”. For better understanding of the case, the impugned order is reproduced below : “This Appeal is filed on behalf of Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. against Smt. Mangi Devi and others aggrieved by the judgment dated 27th July 2012 passed by District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Barmer. Facts of the case are as that the Complainant is the member of District Council Barmer and Complainant feel need to purchase a car for the personal requirement on which on 25.4.2011 Complainant has purchased the alleged vehicle, which complete detail is given in para 1 of the Complaint, for a sum of ₹2,31,974/- and given three years free service and warrantee, but just after 8-10 days of the purchase loud noise of su-su began coming from the said vehicle and it also give average only 10 Km per litre. On 3.5.2011 Complainant has showed the above vehicle to Respondent No.1 and Respondent No.1 said that there is manufacture defect in the above vehicle and then Complainant said that there is a condition of three years warrantee and free service, but Respondent No.1 has denied to replace the vehicle, repair and servicing. Therefore, Complainant has to file the Complaint and pray that Complaint of the Complainant be allowed and pass order to award the cost of the vehicle as it has manufacture defects and also award expenses. Respondent appeared and filed written statement and prayed that Complaint of the Complainant is baseless and be dismissed with cost. It does not have any manufacture defects. Arguments heard and perused the file. After purchasing the car by the Complainant from Respondent just after 8-10 days, it began coming noise of su-su and average also began come 10 km per litre. There was manufacture defect in the car, so far as report of the specialist is concerned, respondent could also submit the report and can say that there is no any manufacture defect. The order passed by the Ld. District Forum, it does not have any error. Applicant is liable to be dismissed and dismissed.” 4 A perusal of the impugned order shows that there is absolutely no reason given in the said order with respect to the issues raised by the Appellant and also the Respondent/Complainant. Even the submissions of learned Counsel for both the parties are not addressed. Hence, I find it to be a fit case to be remanded back to the State Commission for fresh adjudication with all issues left open. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is set aside and the Appeal is remanded back to the State Commission for fresh adjudication. Parties shall appear before the State Commission on 30.10.2019. The State Commission is requested to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as practicable not later than three months from the date of first appearance of the parties. | 
