Respondent-Complainant filed the complaint in the year 2001. Complaint filed by the Respondent was allowed. Aggrieved by which, the Appellant filed the First Appeal No. 500 of 2006 in this Commission. This commission set aside the order passed by the State Commission and remitted back the case to the State Commission to decide it afresh with certain directions. By the impugned order, the State Commission had shifted the burden to prove the manufacturing defect on the Appellant-manufacturer. Also inspite of directions issued by this Commission in the order of remand, no expert opinion was taken to show the manufacturing defect. The Complaint was again allowed and the appellant was directed to pay the sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the Respondent on return of the vehicle. Rs.25,000/- was awarded by way of compensation and Rs.10,000/- as costs. Opposite party being aggrieved has again filed the appeal. Counsel for the Appellant contends that the burden to prove the manufacturing defect was on the respondent as it is the respondent who had alleged that there were manufacturing defects and the Appellant could not be directed to prove in the negative that there was a manufacturing defect. The case had come up for hearing before us on 13.08.2013. In view of the facts the State Commission has wrongly put the burden on the Appellant to prove in the negative that there was manufacturing defect and that the State Commission had not obtained any expert opinion to show manufacturing defect, inspite of directions issued by this Commission. As a result, the case was required to be remitted back to the State Commission. Since the Respondent has been unduly harassed for the last 12 years on the technicalities, we requested the counsel for the Appellant to persuade his client to settle the dispute. Counsel for the Appellant had assured us that he will make sincere efforts to persuade his client to settle the dispute. Counsel for the Appellant, after taking instructions states, that the Appellant is prepared to offer another sum of Rs.70,000/- to the Respondent, in addition to the sum of Rs.60,000/-, already paid. Respondent who is appearing in person, is not willing to accept the offer made by the Appellant. Under the circumstances, perforce, we have no other option, but to set aside the order of the State Commission and remand the same to the State Commission, as the State Commission had erred in shifting the burden to prove the manufacturing defect on the Appellant and further State Commission had failed to obtain the expert opinion on the manufacturing defect, inspte of the direction issued by this Commission. The impugned order is set aside. The case is remitted back to State Commission to decide afresh, in accordance with law, keeping in view the directions issued by this Commission, vide order, dated 29.02.2008 in First Appeal No.500 of 2006. Parties are directed to appear on 21.10.2013, before State Commission. Since we are remitting the case back to the State Commission for the second time and the parties have already been harassed for the last 12 years, we would request the State Commission to dispose off the Complaint, as expeditiously as possible, and preferably, within two months from the date of first appearance. On 27.3.2009 we had directed the Appellant to deposit Rs.2 lakhs before the State Commission. The State Commission would be at liberty to pass an appropriate order about the disbursal of the amount at the time of disposal of the complaint. | 
