Heard Counsel for the Appellant.

2. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that theComplainant haspurchased Tatamagic vehicle for Rs.4, 29,000/- by incurring loan from O.P No.3. It is alleged by the Complainant that after purchase of the vehicle the engine of the aforesaid vehicle was found defective. Complainant alleged before the O.ps for rectification of defect. Since vehicle was not repaired, he filed the complaint.

3.Learned Counsel for O.PNo.1 and 3 were set ex-parte.

 4.O.P No .2 filedwritten version statingthat he has already returned all the original documents to the complainant.

5.The O.P No.4 in his written version stated that complaint filed by the complainant does not fall within the definition of consumer disputes under the C.P Act 1986 and as such it is not maintainable.

6.After hearing both parties, Learned District Forum passed the following order:

“The complainant is a consumer under the purview of C.P. Act. Retail invoice dtd. 30-04-2017 issued in favour of the complainant shows that TATA Motors finance hypothecated the vehicle paid Rs. 3, 83,480/- to the O.P No.1. Due to defective engine, the TATA magic the complainant could not ply his vehicle and sustained financial loss and mental agony, owing to several approaches, the O.Ps did not listen.

           Taking into consideration of the case of the complainant and counter filed by O.P No.2 and O.P N0.4 document and submission made by them, we direct the O.P No.4 to replace the engine of the vehicle i.e TATA magic by new one and to pay compensation for Rs. 5,000/- Rupees five thousand) only to the complainant within one month from the date of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to take stepagainst the O.P for realisation of awarded amount. The case against O.P No.1, 2&3 isdismissed withoutcost. The case is disposed of accordingly.”

7.It clearly shows that the Learned District Forum has not assigned any reasonsto pass the order .Judicial propriety demands that order/Judgement must be passed being based on rational reason. Therefore we are of the view that the impugned order should be set-aside and remanded to the learned District Commission for allowing both the parties of being heard and dispose of the case by keeping in mind of the aforesaid observation within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. It is made clear that we have not given opinion on the merit of the case and that will be decided by the Learned District Commission basing on the evidence produced before the learned District Commission. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned District Commission on 28-07-2022 to take further instruction.

               The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No cost.

              Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet or website of this Commission to treat same as if copy of order received from this commission.