JUSTICE J. M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER (ORAL) 1. Learned counsel for the parties present. Arguments heard. 2. The State Commission dismissed the complaint on the ground of 86 days’ delay. There was procedural and departmental delay. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties on merits of this case as well. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that M/s Tata Motors Limited had refunded Rs. 3 lakh to Shri Ranganath Nagar or dealer but the learned counsel for the complainant denies it. It is stated that the complainant did not receive the amount of Rs. 3 lakh. This question requires investigation and evidence. 5. We are of the considered view that this case be remanded back to the State Commission, who will hear the entire case and decide it on merits afresh. So far as delay is concerned, the petitioner has filed a judgment of this Bench reported in Tata AIG Life Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Orissa State Cooperative Bank and another IV (2012) CPJ 310 (NC) where reliance was placed on celebrated authority reported in N. Balakrishnan vs. M. Krishnamurty (1998) 7 SCC 123. 6. We accept the revision petition, condone the delay subject to deposit of Rs.25,000/- as costs, which be deposited with the Consumer Welfare Fund in the name of “Pay and Accounts Officer-Ministry of Consumer Affairs’, payable at New Delhi through demand draft. To make the things easy, the demand draft be prepared and handed over to the Registrar of this Commission, who will transmit the same to the concerned department. 7. We further impose costs of Rs.10,000/-, which be paid to Shri Rangnath through demand draft directly, may be before the State Commission, on 5.1.2015. The State Commission is directed to decide the case on merits expeditiously. The State Commission will see to it that entire costs stand paid otherwise it will not entertain the appeal filed by the petitioner. | 
