Petitioner was the complainant before the District Forum.

          Petitioner had purchased Contessa car on 25.1.1995 for Rs.3,49,350/- from Krishna Automobiles Limited, respondent No.2 herein, which was manufactured by Hindustan Motors Limited, respondent No.1 herein.  It was alleged in the complaint that the car supplied was accidented and had manufacturing defects.  This was

-2-

brought to the notice of the respondents but the respondents failed to rectify the defects.  Aggrieved by this, petitioner filed the complaint before the District Forum.

          District Forum vide its order dated 30.1.2000 allowed the complaint by holding that the car had met with an accident before the delivery and a repaired car was sold.  It was also held that there were manufacturing defects.  On the basis of findings recorded, District Forum directed the respondents either to replace the car or pay the purchase price along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of purchase till realization.  Costs of Rs.20,000/- were also imposed.

          Hindustan Motors Limited, the manufacturer, filed an appeal before the State Commission.  The State Commission holding that there was no manufacturing defect but because the car had been taken to the workshop repeatedly for different defects, awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- by way of compensation which included costs of the litigation as well.  Order of the District Forum directing the respondents either to replace the car or pay the purchase price along

-3-

with interest, was set aside.  The State Commission did not record any finding as to whether the car had met with an accident before delivery or not.

          In the ‘Grounds of Appeal’ before the State Commission, petitioner in para 14 has specifically taken the plea that the finding recorded by the District Forum that the car had met with an accident prior to the delivery of the car was incorrect.

          Counsel for the parties have been heard.

          Since the State Commission has not recorded any finding as to whether accidented car had been sold to the petitioner, we set aside the order passed by the State Commission and remand the same to the State Commission to pass a fresh order in accordance with law after affording due opportunity of hearing to counsel for the parties.   All pleas are left open.

          Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 26.11.2009. 

-4-

          Since it is an old case, we would request the State Commission to dispose of the appeal as expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months from the first date of appearance.