ORDER 1. This appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) in challenge to the Order dated 18.10.2017 of the State Commission in complaint no. 58 of 2017, whereby the complaint was partly allowed. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant / opposite party and the learned counsel for the complainant / respondent and perused the record including the State Commission’s impugned Order dated 18.10.2017 and the memorandum of appeal. For the convenience, the parties are placed in the respective position as in the consumer complaint no. 58 of 2017. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 18.02.2016 the complainant had booked a car, namely, Fortuner White Colour Top Model, and deposited a sum of Rs. 25 lakh towards the cost of the car with the opposite party, who was a Director of the firm VICON Toyota (car) and the Showroom of the opposite party. It is alleged that the opposite party assured the complainant that the car will be delivered to the complainant within two months but the car was not delivered even within one year from the date of booking. It is further alleged that the opposite party also did not refund the amount deposited by the complainant. Hence, alleging deficiency in service on the part of the opposite party, the complainant / respondent filed a complaint before the State Commission. 4. Before the State Commission, neither the opposite party appeared despite service of notice nor has filed written statement / reply. 5. The State Commission, vide its order dated 18.10.2017 partly allowed the complaint and directed the opposite party to refund a sum of Rs. 25 lakh to the complainant along with interest at the rate of 12% p.a. from 18.02.2016 i.e. the date of deposit of the amount till realization. The State Commission also awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation for mental agony and Rs. 5,000/- towards cost of litigation. 6. Being aggrieved by the impugned Order dated 18.10.2017 of the State Commission, the opposite party filed the instant appeal before this Commission. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant / opposite party has argued that the appellant / opposite party was not able to appear because the notice was not served on him and he came to know about the Order only when notice on execution was served on him in Jail. He has further argued that as he was not served with the notice on the complaint, he could not file the reply thereof. He further submits that the appellant / opposite party has already refunded a sum of Rs. 5 lakh to the complainant through RTGS but this fact was not brought to the notice of the State Commission by the complainant and requests that the matter be remanded back to the State Commission to decide it afresh. 8. Learned counsel for the complainant / respondent has argued that the proceedings / order sheet of the learned State Commission dated 05.09.2017 specifically recorded that the notice was served upon the appellant / opposite party but he choose to remain absent from appearing before the State Commission. He further argued that the appellant / opposite party has stated in the appeal that a sum of Rs. 5 lakh has been refunded but he has not filed any documentary proof in the appeal showing that a sum of Rs. 5 lakh has been refunded to the complainant / respondent through RTGS. He further argued that the State Commission, after providing sufficient opportunity after due service of notice to the opposite party has passed a well-reasoned order. 9. In this view of the matter, in the interest of justice and after having objectively and impartially considered the nature of the dispute and the overall facts and circumstances as are being borne out by the record, it is deemed to be just and appropriate to remand back the matter to the State Commission to get it adjudicated on merit, in accordance with law. 10. This Commission is consciously refraining from detailing the facts or critiquing the matter since the dispute is as yet to be adjudicated on merit and it does not wish to in any manner colour the vision of the forum below. 11. The Order dated 18.10.2017 of the State Commission is set aside and the complaint is restored to its original number before the State Commission. The State Commission is requested to decide it afresh on merits, in accordance with law, as early as possible preferably within six months from the date of first hearing before the State Commission i.e. 25.11.2024. 12. The parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 25.11.2024. 13. The appellant / opposite party is advised to be present and pursue the case sincerely before the State Commission. 14. The appeal stands disposed of. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. 15. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to the parties and to their learned counsel immediately. It is also requested to forthwith send a copy of this Order to the State Commission by the fastest mode available. | 
