ORDER Dt.20.5.09 — Heard Mr. J. Panda, learned counsel appearing for the appel¬lant M/s. Utkal Hyundai represented through its General Manager, Chandra Bhusan Giri at plot No.146/4, Bomikhal, Cuttack- Puri Road, Bhubaneswar. By means of this appeal memo, the order of the District Forum, Keonjhar passed in Consumer Complaint No.50 of 2008 on 26.3.2009 has been assailed. 2. Perused the office note. The appeal is on time. 3. Heard Mr. Panda, learned counsel on the question of admission and perused the appeal memo and the impugned judgment and order. By the final order, in the impugned judgment, the District Forum has directed the opposite party No.2/appellant to take possession of the defective ‘i IO Hyundai car’ bearing Registration No.OR-02-AR-0895 at his own cost within a month from the date of the order and the sale price amounting to Rs.5,09,000/- and registration fee of Rs.50,000/- total amounting to Rs.5,59,000/- with interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum on the said amount be refunded to the complainant and the interest shall be calculated from the date of purchase i.e., 6.12.2007. It has further directed that the opposite party No.2/appellant shall pay Rs.5,000/- as compensation for physical and mental harassment and also litigation expenses. 4. Although there was question of manufacturing defect raised by the complainant, for which the deficiency was alleged even without any examination of the vehicle by any expert of the Company or any Auto Mobile Engineer or any other appropriate Company Automobile Engineer, the District Forum itself has con¬cluded that the vehicle has manufacturing defect and has directed the present appellant, who was the opposite party No.2 before the District Forum i.e. the dealer at Bhubaneswar to take back the vehicle and refund the sale price received by him along with interest as stated above. 5. 5. On a bare reading of the entire judgment and looking to the issues framed, we find that no issue was framed whether any deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties or on the part of this appellant in rendering service to the complain¬ant in any manner has occurred and the conclusion of the District Forum as it appears to be not only without application of mind but also illegal and apparently irregular and the District Forum has not applied its mind to find out its jurisdiction to enter¬tain the complaint as the opposite parties have neither got their office or business or ordinarily carry on business by appointing any dealer in the district of Keonjhar. In that view of the matter, at the very admission stage, we set-aside the said order of the District Forum passed on 26.3.2009 in Consumer Complaint No.50 of 2008 and direct dismissal of the said Consumer Complaint in the file of District Forum, Keonjhar. Appeal allowed.