This order shall dispose of the above-captioned two Revision Petitions.  Facts and the law point involved in both the revision petitions is the same.  Revision Petition No.3742/2007 has been filed by the manufacturer and revision petition No.1326/2007 has been filed by the dealer.  They are being disposed of by this common order.  Facts are being taken from Revision Petition No.3742/2007.

        Complainant/respondent purchased a Lancer car in April 2003 for Rs.9,24,379/- manufactured by the petitioner from its dealer – Respondent No.2 herein.  As per averments made in the complaint, delivery of the vehicle was delayed by 20 days after making the payment.  It has been alleged that the vehicle in question developed various defects i.e. engine was consuming too much oil; the battery of the car was of make March, 2002 which was delivered in April, 2003 and the same became dead after 4 months; poor quality components were used; head lights were poor and there was abnormal sound in the AC, etc.; that the complainant took the vehicle to Respondent No.2 on various occasions to rectify the defects but the problems persisted; that Respondent No.2 finally admitted inherent defects in the engine of the vehicle and offered to replace the same; that Respondent No.2 did not adhere to the offer made.  Being aggrieved, complainant filed the complaint before the District Forum.

District Forum disposed of the complaint by directing the petitioner and Respondent No.2 to replace the engine of the vehicle. They were also directed to pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation and Rs.1,000/- as costs.

Petitioner and Respondent No.2 accepted the order of the District Forum and did not file appeal.  Complainant being dissatisfied with the order passed by the District Forum, filed the appeal before the State Commission which allowed the same and modified the order of the District Forum in the following terms:-

“In the given facts and circumstance of the case, we allow the appeal by modifying the impugned order to the effect that the respondent shall refund the entire cost of the vehicle on its return and in lieu of interest we allow a lump sum compensation of Rs.2.5 lacs for the mental agony, harassment, emotional suffering, physical discomfort, trauma as we cannot be oblivious of the fact that the appellant had arranged a loan from the bank and had been paying interest.”

        Aggrieved against the order passed by the State Commission, both the manufacturer and the dealer have filed separate revision petitions.

        After perusing the order of the State Commission we find that the State Commission has allowed the appeal by making general observations without recording any reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at.  State Commission has not recorded any finding with reference to any evidence that there were manufacturing defects in the car.

        Learned counsel appearing for the complainant/respondent fairly concedes that the order of the State Commission is not sustainable as the State Commission has not recorded any specific reasons in the impugned order for coming to the conclusion that there were manufacturing defects in the vehicle.

        In view of the concession made by the counsel for the complainant/respondent, we set aside the order passed by the State Commission and remit the case back to the State Commission to decide it afresh in accordance with law.  All contentions are left open.  Nothing stated herein be taken as expression of opinion.

        Parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the State Commission on 18.4.2012.

Since this is an old matter, we would request the State Commission to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of 4 months from the date of first appearance.