PER JUSTICE J.M. MALIK, PRESIDING MEMBER Counsel for the petitioner heard. -2- 2. Petitioner Jayanta Mukherjee filed complaint against the respondents because the motorcycle purchased by him was found to be defective. The District Forum allowed the complaint and ordered that the petition of the complainant is allowed on contest with cost against the opposite parties. Opposite Parties were directed to refund a sum of Rs. 1,04,529/- only together with interest @ 9% from the date of purchase till the date of realization and were directed to pay compensation of Rs. 20,000/- for harassment and mental agony and litigation cost of Rs. 5,000/- . 3. Aggrieved by that order, M/s. Royal Enfield filed appeal before the State Commission. M/s. East India Agro Industries Pvt. Ltd. did not file the appeal but it was arrayed as a proforma party. The State Commission remanded the case because the report of the Automobile Association of Eastern India was filed before it for the first time. 4. However, it is surprising to note that no costs were imposed for leading the fresh evidence. The duty of this Court is to take care of the consumer. It is also surprising to note that the State Commission did not give any date of appearance before the District Forum. The District Forum has not yet summoned the parties. It is not understood as to why the State Commission was so soft towards the appellant-M/s. Royal -3- Enfield. Since the matter has been adjourned for fresh evidence, therefore, we do not pick up conflict with that. 5. The petitioner is directed to appear before the District Forum on 18.12.2013. 6. Dasti copy be given to the counsel for the petitioner and the District Forum is directed to summon the parties and decide the case as expeditiously as possible even by hearing it on day-to-day basis, but not more than three months from the receipt of this order. | 
