Per Justice G.D. Sharma, J. (Oral) 1. The respondent had filed cross-appeal to challenge the impugned order of this appeal which was decided on merits on 24.02.2009. On the last date, appellant was not present and notice was issued to him for appearance but he has not appeared. The appeal is four years old and a short point for decision is involved, therefore, we under R.10 of Consumer Protection Rules take it for decision on merits. 2. The impugned order reveals that on 17.01.2005, the Learned Divisional Forum Jammu (herein after referred to as Forum) had allowed the complaint of the appellant and granted him the relief which is reproduced hereunder:- "From the discussion made hereinabove we direct the respondents to replace the car of the complainant with a new one free from manufacturing defect or in the alternative refund the price to the complainant received by them and for the said purpose the complainant has to bear loss of 20% of the purchased money of the said vehicle. The complainant shall deliver the possession of the car to the respondent at the time of replacement or refund of the amount alongwith relevant documents. The respondents shall do the needful within six weeks from the receipt of this order, failing which they will be liable to pay interest @ 9% p.a on the amount of car from the date of this order till its realization. The respondents shall also pay Rs. 2000/- as a cost of litigation. The complaint is allowed and disposed of accordingly. File be duly compiled and consigned to record after due completion." 3. The complainant felt aggrieved of the direction to receive the refund the price of the purchased car after making a deduction of 20% of the purchase money. It is pleaded in the appeal that respondents had to replace the car and bear the cost of litigation because he had been penalized in the alternative relief to bear the loss of 20% of the price paid by him to the respondents when he was at no fault for receiving car having an inherent manufacturing defect. 4. We have considered the controversy and find that relief in the alternative was not justifiable. 4. We have considered the controversy and find that relief in the alternative was not justifiable. When it was proved that car was having inherent manufacturing defect then a clear direction should have gone to the respondents to replace the defective car with new one without having any manufacturing defect. In this view of the matter, we accept the appeal and modify the impugned order to the extent that the respondents shall provide a new car free from any manufacturing defect in place of the car in question as soon as possible alongwith the litigation expenses of Rupees Ten Thousand throughout. The appeal is consigned to records and the record of the Forum be returned at once.