Taken up through video conferencing. 1. Heard the learned counsel at admission. Perused the material on record. 2. The dispute relates to problems and cuts in the rear tyres of a new tractor bought by the complainant. The District Commission vide its Order dated 18.03.2013 allowed the complaint in part and ordered the opposite parties to replace the two rear tyres of the tractor and to pay Rs. 15,000/- as compensation and Rs. 2,000/- as cost of litigation with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint. The District Commission made its Order on contest. Appeal thereagainst by the opposite party no. 2 John Deere India Private Limited (the manufacturer of the tractor) was dismissed by the State Commission vide its impugned Order dated 26.02.2021. The State Commission’s said Order of 26.02.2021 reads as below: “26.02.21 “None for appellant. “The default as pointed out by the office has not been removed, in spite of repeated opportunities. “2. Appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution, as also on account of non-removal of defaults.” 3. The complaint was filed in the year 2012, the District Commission made its Order in the year 2013. 4. Appeal was filed in the year 2013, it was dismissed by the State Commission in the year 2021. The defects had not been removed for over seven years. Self-evidently, reasonable opportunity, and more, had been provided. None appeared for the appellant on the date of the hearing i.e. on 26.02.2021, and the State Commission dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution as also for not removing the defaults. 5. It is thus seen that (i) the District Commission decided the matter on contest and (ii) the State Commission gave sufficient opportunity to the appellant before dismissing its appeal. 6. The right to file appeal has a concomitant responsibility to conduct it professionally. The appeal was procrastinated for about seven years. The ideal normative period of deciding an appeal, as provided in Section 19A of the Act 1986, is 90 days of its admission. The Act 1986 is for “better protection of the interests of consumers”, in recognizedly a fight amongst unequals. Its statement of objects and reasons says of “speedy and simple redressal to consumer disputes”. 7. No jurisdictional error, or legal principle ignored, or miscarriage of justice is visible. Considering the matter in its totality, it would albeit be a travesty of justice to remand the case back to the State Commission (as prayed for in the petition). The petition is bereft of merit, ill-conceived, vexatious. Nothing warrants interference by this Commission in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. 8. The revision petition is dismissed with cost of Rs.10,000/-, to be paid to the respondent complainant by way of ‘payee’s a/c only’ demand draft within a period of four weeks from today, failing which the District Commission shall undertake execution as per the law. 9. The Registry is requested to send a copy each of this Order to all the parties as well as to the State Commission and the District Commission within three days. The stenographer is requested to upload this Order on the website of this Commission immediately. | 
