PER JUSTICE K.S. CHAUDHARI, PRESIDING MEMBER This revision petition has been filed by the Petitioner against the impugned order dated 17.7.2012 passed by the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bangalore (in short, he State Commission in Appeal No.3763 of 2011 Skoda Auto India (P) Ltd. Vs. Raghvendra H.S. & Anr. by which, while dismissing appeal, order of District Forum passed under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act was upheld. 2. Brief facts of the case are that complainant No. 1/respondent No.1 purchased Skoda Fabia vehicle bearing No. KA 51 Z 2956 manufactured by OP No.1/Petitioner from through its dealer, OP No. 2/Respondent No.2. On 2.10.2009, when complainant along with his friends went for outing in this vehicle, it suddenly stopped on the road. Complainant immediately contacted OPs and it was towed back to Bangalore by incurring expenditure of Rs.14,400/-. On examination of engine, it was noticed that water was logged in it. On account of manufacturing defect in the said engine, complainant was unable to reap the fruits of his investment. Complainant requested OP to replace the car which was refused by OP. Alleging deficiency on the part of OPs, complainant filed complaint before District Forum. OP contested complaint, filed written statement and submitted that complainant took the vehicle in stormy raining water and on account of his carelessness, water entered into engine for which OP cannot be blamed. It was further submitted that there was no manufacturing defect in the said engine and prayed for dismissal of the complaint. Learned District Forum after hearing both the parties allowed complaint. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by learned State Commission vide order dated 4.8.2011. Complainant filed Execution Petition before the learned District Forum. OP moved application under Section 151 CPC for dismissal of Execution Petition, which was dismissed by learned District Forum vide its order dated 19.10.2011. By order dated 3.11.2011, District Forum took cognizance for offence under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act and sworn statement of the complainant was recorded and non-bailable warrant was issued against the accused. Petitioner filed appeal against this order which were dismissed by learned State Commission vide impugned order against which, this revision petition has been filed. 3. Heard Learned Counsel for the parties and perused record. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that order of trial court merges in the order of Appellate Court and after dismissal of appeal, petitioner asked complainant to bring his vehicle to the workshop within the prescribed period given by District Forum, even then, learned District Forum committed error in dismissing petitioner application and issuing non-bailable warrant and learned State Commission further committed error in dismissing appeal, hence, revision petition be allowed and impugned order be set aside. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that order passed by learned State Commission is in accordance with law, as learned State Commission by its previous order confirmed order of District Forum allowing complaint. Period of 60 days of compliance had already elapsed and in such circumstances, order passed by learned State Commission does not call for any interference; hence, revision petition be dismissed. 5. The core question which is to be decided in this revision petition is whether; order of District forum merges into the order of State Commission, though, State Commission dismissed appeal and whether; period of compliance will be reckoned from the date of dismissal of appeal or from the date of order of District Forum. Learned District Forum in its order dated 19.10.2011 observed as under: he merging means if the order of the trial court is modified/reserved then the appellant order has to be followed and not of the Trial Court. But in this case the order of this Forum is fully confirmed. Hence the question of starting date for compliance of the order is from the date of the dismissal of the appeal does not arise 6. After dismissing application under Section 151 filed by the petitioner, learned District Forum vide its order dated 3.11.2011 took cognizance under Section 27 of the C.P. Act against petitioner and issued non-bailable warrants against him and this order was affirmed by learned State Commission vide impugned order. 7. Admittedly, District Forum allowed complaint vide order dated 22.7.2010 and learned State Commission vide its detailed order dated 4.8.2011 dismissed appeal of the petitioner and order of District Forum was confirmed. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per principle of merger, order of lower court merges in the order of Appellate Court, though, appeal is dismissed and order of lower court is confirmed, and compliance is to be made of Appellate Court. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance on AIR 1958 SC 868 Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay Vs. M/s. Amritlal Bhogilal and Co. in which Honle Apex Court observed as under: 0. There can be no doubt that, if an appeal is provided against an order passed by a tribunal, the decision of the appellate authority is the operative decision in law. If the appellate authority modifies or reverses the decision of the tribunal, it is obvious that it is the appellate decision that is effective and can be enforced. In law the position would be just the same even if the appellate decision merely confirms the decision of the tribunal. As a result of the confirmation or affirmance of the decision of the tribunal by the appellate authority the original decision merges in the appellate decision and it is the appellate decision alone which subsists and is operative and capable of enforcement; but the question is whether this principle can apply to the Income-tax Officer’s order granting registration to the respondent He further placed reliance on (1974) 2 SCC 453 Gojer Bros. (Pvt.) Ltd. Vs. Shri Ratan Lal Singh in which Honle Apex Court in para 19 observed as under: 9. The fundamental reason of the rule that where there has been an appeal, the decree to be executed is the decree of the appellate court is that in such cases the decree of the trial court is merged in the decree of the appellate court. In course of time, this concept which was originally restricted to appellate decrees on the ground that an appeal is a, continuation of the suit, came to be gradually extended to other proceedings like Revisions and even to proceedings before quasi-judicial and executive authorities He further placed reliance on AIR 1990 SC 10 S.S. Rathore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh in which Honle Apex Court in para 12 observed as under: 2. The next Constitution Bench decision of this Court is that of Collector of Customs, Calcutta v. East India Commercial Co. Ltd., [1963] 2 SCR 563 where this Court observed: "The question, therefore, turns on whether the order of the original authority becomes merged in the order of the appellate authority even where the appellate authority merely dismisses the appeal without any modification of the order of the original authority. It is obvious that when an appeal is made, the appellate authority can do one of three things, namely, (i) it may reverse the order under appeal, (ii) it may modify that order, and (iii) it may merely dismiss the appeal and thus confirm the order without any modification. It is not disputed that in the first two cases where the order of the original authority is either reversed or modified it is the order of the appellate authority which is the operative order and if the High Court has no jurisdiction to issue a writ to the appellate authority it cannot issue a writ to the original authority. The question therefore is whether there is any difference between these two cases and the third case where the appellate authority dismisses the appeal and thus confirms the order of the original authority. It seems to us that on principle it is difficult to draw a distinction between the first two kinds of orders passed by the appellate authority and the third kind of order passed by it. In all these three cases after the appellate authority has disposed of the appeal, the operative order is the order of the appellate authority whether it has reversed the original order or modified it or confirmed it. In law, the appellate order of confirmation is quite as efficacious as an operative order as an appellate order of reversal or modification." He further placed reliance on (2000) 6 SCC 359 Kunhayammed & Ors. Vs. State of Kerala & Anr. in which Honle Apex Court in paragraphs 7 & 8 observed as under: .The doctrine of merger is neither a doctrine of constitutional law nor a doctrine statutorily recognised. It is a common law doctrine founded on principles of propriety in the hierarchy of justice delivery system. On more occasions than one this Court had an opportunity of dealing with the doctrine of merger. It would be advisable to trace and set out the judicial opinion of this Court as it has progressed through the times. 8. In Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay Vs. M/s Amritlal Bhogilal and Co. AIR 1958 SC 868 this Court held : There can be no doubt that, if an appeal is provided against an order passed by a tribunal, the decision of the appellate authority is the operative decision in law. If the appellate authority modifies or reverses the decision of the tribunal, it is obvious that it is the appellate decision that is effective and can be enforced. In law the position would be just the same even if the appellate decision merely confirms the decision of the tribunal. As a result of the confirmation or affirmance of the decision of the tribunal by the appellate authority the original decision merges in the appellate decision and it is the appellate decision alone which subsists and is operative and capable of enforcement He further placed reliance on (2010) 11 SCC 374 M.R.F. Ltd. Vs. Manohar Parrikar and Ors. in which Honle Apex Court in paragraph 27 observed as under: 7. In our view, the principle of merger essentially refers to the merging of the orders passed by the superior courts with that of the orders passed by a subordinate court. This Court in the case of Shankar Ramachandra Abhyankar Vs. Krishnaji Dattatreya Bapat (AIR 1970 SC 1) has laid down the condition as to when there can be a merger of the orders of the superior court with that of the orders passed by the lower court. This Court stated, that, if any judgment pronounced by the superior court in the exercise of its appellate or revisional jurisdiction after issue of a notice and a full hearing in the presence of both the parties, then it would replace the judgment of the lower court. Thus, constituting the judgment of the superior court the only final judgment to be executed in accordance with law by the Court below. The merger is essentially of the operative part of the order and the principle of merger of the order of the subordinate Court with the order of the superior Court cannot be applied when there is no order made by the superior Court on merits and the controversy between the parties has not been looked into by the superior Court 8. In the light of aforesaid judgements, it becomes clear that, even though, appeal has been dismissed, the order of the Appellate Authority is to be complied with and in such circumstances, period of sixty days given by the District Forum will start from the date of pronouncement of judgment by learned State Commission. Learned State Commission vide its order dated 4.8.2011 dismissed appeal and within period of 60 days on 26.9.2011 petitioner asked complainant to bring the vehicle at the workshop of their dealer for compliance of the order for replacement of the engine of the car with their brand new defect less engine and also to carry out the repairs, etc. Learned District Forum wrongly observed that petitioner has not written to complainant within 60 days of its intention to repair, whereas it becomes clear that after dismissal of appeal by the State Commission, petitioner asked complainant within 60 days of period to bring car for necessary compliance of the order of District Forum. Learned District Forum further committed error in issuing non-bailable warrants against the petitioner after dismissal of application under Section 151 of CPC submitted by petitioner. Learned State Commission has committed error in upholding order of District Forum and in such circumstances, order of State Commission is liable to be set aside. 9. Consequently, revision petition filed by the petitioner is allowed and impugned order dated 17.7.2012 passed by learned State Commission is set aside and consequently order of District Forum dated 3.11.2011 is set aside. Parties to bear their own cost.