Heard learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondent.

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

3.   The case of the complainant in nutshell is that  the complainant purchased a Tata Safari VX Pearl model  vehicle from OP No.1 and  it was delivered  to the complainant on 1.8.2011 on payment of consideration of Rs.11,85,372/-. It is alleged inter alia that the said vehicle bearing Registration No. OR-14X-6011 gave trouble after some time of its purchase. The vehicle was attended by OP No.1 for repairing. It is further alleged that after  repair the vehicle again gave trouble for which it was attended OP No.1. It alleged by the complainant  that  frequently the vehicle gave trouble and OP No.4 has attended the service also and for that the complainant paid Rs.1,00,000/- to OP No.4 for service charges. Since the vehicle gave defects time and again within the warranty period, the complainant asked OP No.4 to take back the defective vehicle and replace it with a new one or to refund the cost. As the OP turned deaf to the case of complainant, the complaint was filed.

4.      OP was set ex parte.

5.      After hearing learned counsel for the complainant, learned District Forum passed the following impugned order:-

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

            The OP No.1 and OP No.3 are directed to refund the cost of the said alleged defective vehicle of Rs.11,82,271 (Rupees eleven lakhs eighty two thousand two hundred seventy one) only to the complainant within one month of this order. Further all the OPs are directed to pay Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only each towards harassment, mental agony and cost of this case to the complainant. Further the OP No. 2 and 3 are directed to ensure strict compliance of manufacturers guidelines, so that a consumer is not put to mental agony for lapses and latches of their agents.

Further we direct the OP No.4 to pay the cost of transport charges of the complainant’s family i.e Rs.3000/- and refund Rs.75,000/- towards service charges for unserviceable parts covered under warranty to the complainant.

All the above orders are to be carried out by the OPs within 2 months from receiving of this order failing which interest shall be chargeable @8% per annum over and above all the ordered amount from the date of this order till realization.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that they have preferred appeal and OP No.1 has also preferred another appeal. Their appeal is present appeal whereas FA No.253 of 2013 preferred by OP No.1 has been dismissed for default on 26.11.2014. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that learned District Forum had issued notice and they have appeared but their advocate did not take step due to the strike called by the Western Odisha. Therefore, they have been set ex parte. He submitted that the complainant has no cause of action and complaint is not maintainable because they have attended all repairs and there is no any case made out to show that the vehicle should be replaced with a new one. If opportunity is given he would produce all the materials so that the complaint can be dismissed on contest. Therefore, he submitted to allow the appeal by remanding the case for  de novo hearing.

7.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for   the appellants and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

8.      The impugned order shows that the OPs neither appeared nor filed written version. The DFR shows that OP Nos.2 and 3 appeared and took time to file written version. Finally, on 23.2.2016 no step was taken and on that day they were set ex parte. The grounds taken by the appellants that there was strike by the layers of Western Odisha  but that plea has been overlooked by learned District Forum. It appears that the lawyers called the strike in Western Odisha during that period. However, by that the party should not be allowed to suffer for the latches of the lawyers. Moreover, in this case, the admitted case is that the vehicle has been attended frequently by the OPs and the OPs are to prove how far the claim of the complainant lacks consideration. Unless opportunities are given to place the materials, truth will not come.

9.      In view of aforesaid discussion without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, we remand the matter to the learned District Forum  for denovo hearing. Hence, the appeal is allowed by remanding the matter to the learned District Forum to allow the present appellants to appear and file written version and learned District Forum  is further directed to  give opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence, if any and dispose of the matter within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order in accordance with law. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned District Forum on 12.9.2022 to receive further instruction from it.

           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.