Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondents.

2.      This appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to these appeals shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.      The case of the complainant in nutshell is that the complainant  has purchased  a Yamaha Fascino vehicle on 14.10.2016 from OP No.1  on payment of due consideration. While it was purchased the mileage was 25 kms per litre of fuel but  OP No.1 assured that it would increase after two to three service. Complainant alleged interalia that after six months of services, there is no improvement of mileage. On 15.10.2017 the last service was done by OP No.1 on payment of Rs.80/- by the complainant. They found that it was 32 kms per litre of fuel. Due to low mileage, he suffered a lot. Therefore, the complaint was filed showing manufacturing defect in the vehicle.

4.       All the OPs were set ex-parte.

5.       Learned District Forum after  hearing the complainant has passed the following order:-

                             “xxxxxxxxx

In the above circumstances, the complaint filed by the complainant is allowed exparte against the opp.parties. It is the responsibility of the opp.parties to rectify the defect permanently. Hence all the opp.parties are jointly and severally directed to rectify the aforesaid defect  of the vehicle permanently within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order and to pay compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards the financial loss and mental agony of the complainant. In case of failure the opp.parties are jointly and severally directed to replace the above vehicle or to pay the sale price of the vehicle to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order.”

5.        Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has passed the impugned order without analysising the case properly. It is true that the advertisement was made for 66 kms per litre of mileage but practically the vehicle has gone 32 kms per litre as mileage. Learned District Forum has accepted the mileage 66 kms per litre with wrong presumption because the advertisement document does not belong to the appellant- OP. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

6.          Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned order including the DFR.

7.        No doubt the vehicle was purchased from OP No.1 by the complainant. It is admitted fact that unpaid service and paid service have been rendered to the vehicle. However, learnedcounsel for the appellant submitted that if opportunitywould be given to him, he would appraise the Commission with regard totheir difficulty toremove the defect. There is no any expert opinion produced. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that if a chance is given he would produce more evidence.

8.        In view of the aforesaid provision, we hereby allowed the appeal by remitting the case to the learned District Commission for denovo hearing subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to respondent No.1/complainant by the appellant. The appellant is directed to file the copy of this order before the learned District Commission on 25.4.2023 to receive further instruction from it   and the amount of Rs.5,000/- shall be paid to the complainant on his appearance.

             DFR be sent back forthwith.

Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.