ORDER

Leorned counsel for the Appellont is present ond files o memo regording poyment of cost which is kept in record.

2. Mr.Sk.Ruplol,Advocote files vokolornomo for the Respondent No.2 which is occepted ond kept in record.

3. Respondent No.l is present in perscn.

4. Since, Respondent No.l oppeored in person the nome of Mr.B.K.sohoo,Advocote be deleted from the couse list.

5. Though the motter is listed for orders, on the consent of oll the porties, the motter is token up for finol disposol ot the stoge of odmission roking the limited noture of grievonce ond the issues involved in the present comploint ond oppeol.

Sr,--

6. .? .v Mr.R.K.Pottnoikrleorned counsel for the Appellont humbly submits thot primo-focie the leorned District commission hos possed the impugned order in violotion of principles of noturol iustice os the Appellont wcrs not given reqsonoble opportunity of heoring before the leorned District Commission ond it is only on the bosis of uncontroverted ollegotion of the comploinont, the District commission hos possed the impugned order. lt is olso further submitted thot noturol iustice requires reosonqble ond due porticipotion of the porties by giving/offording due opportunity to the porties ond os the oppellont hos not been given reosonoble ond due opportunity by serving proper notice of heoring he moy be offorded due opportunity of porticipoting in heoring, for proper ond due odiudicotion of the comploint.

7. On the otherhond, the comploinont who wos oppeoring in person submits thot the Appellont hos opprooched this Hon'ble commission ot o beloted stoge ond it is nothing but o dilotory toctics to prolong the litigotion so thot o bonofide consumer like him would suffer indefinitely. He further submits thot if the oppeol is -$L .4:

heqrd on merit before this Hon'ble commission it would serYe the ends of iustice.

Mr.Sk.Ruplol, Advocote oppeoring on beholf of the Respondent No.2 foirry submits thot no order hos been possed ogoinst him ond he hos no grievonce to be redressed before this Commission.

8.

9. The present oppeol hos been filed choltenging the order dtd.02 .08.2023 possed in c.c. No.36/2 022 by leorned District commission,Kolohondi,Bhowonipotno in which leqrned District commission hos ordered inter-olio directing the presenr Appellont( op No.l before the District commission) to return bock the sole price of defective vehicle sold to the comploinont omounting to Rs.1,59,068/- poid by the comploinonr to rhe finoncer with interest @ 9 % per onnum from the dqte of purchose i.e. on 21 .09.2o20 till irs poymenr. lr is olso furrher ordered by the leorned District Commission thot the soid omount being received by the comploinont sholl repoy the some to the finoncer towords repoyment of the loon dues ogoinst him. The oP No.l ( Appellont) wos further direcred to poy .)b-' litigotion expenses thot the order would of Rs.l 0,000/- ond it wos direcred be complied within 45 doys from rhe It is well settled thot opportunity of heoring is the bockbone for deciding ony consumer comploint os per c.P.Act,2Ol9. ln our considered opinion, we think it proper ond reosonqble l :ri. if o proper qnd reosonobte .\q_ opportunity is given to oll the porties before the District Commission, it would serve the ends of iustice. But, since the oppellont hos opprooched this Hon'ble commission beyond the limitotion period ond toking into considerotion of the dote of receipt of the order, foiring which compensotion @ Rs.500/- per doy would be leviobte. r0.

Admittedly OP No.l hos nor porticipoted in rhe heoring of the comploint cose. op No.2 & 3 oppeored through counsel but hove not filed their written version within the stipulored period of time os per c.p.Acr,2ot g. I l.

ln our considered view, the contention of the Appellont to the extent thot the cose hos been decided on the uncontroverted foct norroted f overred by the comploinont in the comploint petition formed the bosis of deciding the comploint hos substonce.

12. -XiD -' foct thot the com