2.	Very briefly stated, the facts leading to filing of the complaint were that the Complainant had purchased Tata Indica Passenger Car on 5th May 2000, for a sum of Rs. 3,26,040/-, manufactured by the Appellant TELCO, from second respondent M/s Concorde Motors, which allegedly started giving troubles from almost the first day. As per the statement of the Complainant, the car remained in the garage for 104 days in a short duration of one and quarter years. According to him, there were several defects relating to F.I.P. System, high pollution level, defective engine, problems pertaining to Air condition system, problems pertaining to suspension system, Defective Axel/Chimney pipe, defective wheel rims, defective lighting and electrical systems including cabin antenna, defective wind screen, defective brakes, problems of air leakages, problems in A/c exhaust system. It is in these circumstances, a Compliant was filed before the State Commission, where the matter was contested by the second respondent, i.e., M/s Concorde Motors Ltd. The State Commission based on material on record, i.e., pleadings only, allowed the complaint and directed the Appellant to pay lump-sum compensation of Rs. 5 lakh on return of vehicle by the Complainant to the Appellant. The second Respondent, the dealer was also burdened with a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and litigation cost of Rs. 10,000/-. Aggrieved by this order, the Appellant has preferred this Appeal before us.
3.	Since none is present on behalf of the second Respondent, he is proceeded ex parte. We heard the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant as well as the Ld. Counsel for the Complainant.
4.	The first ground agitated by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant is that the case was fixed at SI. No. 35 for final hearing on 22.08.06 as per cause-list of the State Commission. It was his case that the State Commission on that date decided to hear the cases only up to item no. 25 and the other matters were adjourned. In support of this contention, he has produced the cause-list before us, which is on record. There is no disputing the fact that the instant case was fixed at SI. No. 35. After perusal of the cause-list, we find that after serial no. 25, different dates have been shown in respect of cases appearing at SI. No. 26 to 34. As far as item no. 35 is concerned, i.e., the instant case, we see there is a tick-mark indicating the same fate as of cases appearing at SI. No. 26 to 34, and perhaps another date was given, which has been deleted later on at SI. No. 35 of the cause list. There is tick-mark, which is circled, perhaps meaning that the case was adjourned and then taken up for hearing. This lends credibility to the contention of the Appellant that though, earlier, along with other cases this case (SI.No. 35) was also adjourned to a different date, yet it was later on taken up for hearing, when the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant had already left assuming that the case has been adjourned to some other date. The material on record, i.e., the cause-list of that date sufficiently substantiate this particular factum and the plea advanced by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant. This sort of practice, in our view, is to be avoided at all costs.
5.	We have also seen on record that while it is the plea of the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant that he had filed the written version, a copy of which has been filed before us (page 157 of the paper-book) it bears the stamp of the State Commission of having received it on 7th March 2003, but surprisingly, there is no reference to this reply in the order passed by the State Commission.
6.	In the written version filed by the Ld. Counsel for the Appellant, there is a reference that this written version was returned to the Counsel of the Appellant as it was not properly stamped and signed by authorised representative of the company, but this fatum finds no mention in the order passed by the State Commission.
7.	We also see on record that the written version was filed by the second opposite party, repeating many of the pleas taken by the Complainant before the State Commission, yet the State Commission failed in its duty by not following the procedure as laid down under Section 13 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, nor for that matter the vehicle was sent to any workshop to obtain an independent expert opinion about the alleged defects especially manufacturing "defects", as expected under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
8.	It will be setting a bad law if in these circumstances, any forum not following the procedure as per law, goes on to pass the order without giving an opportunity to the manufacturer to plead his case, in view of which, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the State Commission, which is set aside and case is remanded back to the State Commission for giving an opportunity to the Appellant to plead his case and then pass the order following the procedure as per law laid down under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act.
9.	Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the first Respondent has stated that the vehicle has run about 80,000 kin till date.
10.	Since this is an old case, State Commission is requested to dispose off the case at the earliest.
11.	The Appellant is directed to pay a compensation of Rs. 25,000/- to the Complainant for the inconvenience caused to him.
12.	As per our order dated 2nd April 2007, the Appellant had deposited a sum of Rs. 2,50,000/- with the State Commission, which has been withdrawn by the Respondent/Complainant. The Respondent! Complainant is directed to refund this amount to the Appellant after deducting Rs. 25,000/- towards compensation within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the Appellant shall be free to proceed against Respondent under Section 25/27 of the Consumer Protection Act.
13.	Both the parties are directed to appear before the State Commission on 24th March 2008 for further proceedings.
Appeal allowed accordingly.