1.       This appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Act 1986 in challenge to the Order dated 30.11.2018 of the State Commission in complaint no. 536 of 2018.

2.       Repeatedly called out, intermittently .

No one appears for the appellant (the manufacturer).  It is seen that no one had appeared for it on the preceding two occasions also i.e. on 06.04.2022 and on 17.05.2022.

The learned counsel for the respondent no. 1 (the complainant) and the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 (the dealer) are present. 

We have perused the record including inter alia the impugned Order dated 30.11.2018 of the State Commission and the memorandum of appeal.  

3.       The matter relates to defect(s) in the engine of an SUV vehicle “Endeavor 3.2 L, 4 x 4, Titanium AT” manufactured by Ford India Private Limited (the appellant manufacturer) and sold to the complainant (the respondent no. 1) by M/s A.B. Motors Private Limited (the respondent no. 2 dealer).

The State Commission passed its Order on contest i.e. the manufacturer had the opportunity to furnish its defence.

The State Commission appears to have aptly dealt with the issues germane in the matter. It has dealt with the preliminary issues regarding maintainability and has then gone into the substance and merits of the matter. After appraising the evidence, it has determined, with reasons given, that the subject vehicle was having defect(s) in its engine. It has held the manufacturer liable for the same, and exonerated the dealer.

We have not been able to go as deep into the matter as we could perhaps have, had the learned counsel or an authorised representative of the manufacturer been available to assist us. Prima facie, however, we find no misappreciation of evidence or misapplication of law in the State Commission’s impugned Order. 

4.       The learned counsel for the complainant informs that the manufacturer is winding up its operations and exiting the country. He submits that the manufacturer is intentionally avoiding to appear before this Commission so that it can escape its liability. The submission is that the right which has accrued to the complainant by virtue of the State Commission’s impugned Order is being deliberately compromised and impeded by the manufacturer by filing appeal before this Commission and yet not appearing to conduct it. 

The learned counsel for the dealer confirms that the manufacturer is in the process of winding up from the country.

5.       In the wake of the above situation, we have no hesitation in dismissing the appeal in default in the absence of the appellant today.

6.       The present appeal no. 169 of 2019 stands dismissed in default for lack of prosecution.  

The amount if any deposited by the manufacturer with the State Commission in compliance of this Commission’s Order dated 12.03.2019 along with interest if any accrued thereon shall be forthwith released by the State Commission to the complainant as per the due procedure. The balance awarded amount shall be made good by the manufacturer within four weeks from today, failing which the State Commission shall undertake execution, for ‘enforcement’ and for ‘penalty’, as per the law.

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