JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner who is the Opposite Party No.1/Dealer in Ext.P2 Complaint before the C.D.R.F Ernakulam is before this court challenging Ext.P4 Interim Order passed by the Forum in Ext.P3 Interim Application, which is confirmed in Ext.P8 Revisional Order by the Consumer State Commission. 2. As per Ext.P4 order, the Forum ordered that the Opposite Parties shall jointly and severally liable to repair the vehicle of the Complainant and to hand over the vehicle in road-worthy condition. The complainant is directed to pay Rs.50,000/- to the Opposite Party No.2 within seven days from the date of Order and also to file an Undertaking in the Forum stating that he is ready to pay the balance amount if the Forum find so. It is also made clear that the Opposite parties shall refund Rs.50,000/- to the complainant if the Forum finds that the complainant is entitled to get the refund of the amount. 3. The Respondent No.2 filed Counter Affidavit dated 04/04/2024 opposing the prayers in the Writ Petition. 4. I heard Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri.R.S.Kalkura, Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 Sri.Varghese Prem and Learned Government Pleader who represented Respondents Nos.3 and 4. There is no appearance for the Respondent No.2. 5. The arguments of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner are that the complaint itself is substantially decided in the impugned Ext.P4 Interim Order and that the Dealer is not liable for the manufacturing defect and the Manufacturer alone is liable for the same. 6. The Learned Counsel for the Respondent No.1 challenged the maintainability of the Writ Petition on the ground that Writ Petition is not maintainable against Ext.P4 Interim order which is confirmed in Revision. He contended that the petitioner challenged Ext.P4 Order by filing Revision joining with the Respondent No.2/Manufacturer and hence the petitioner can not maintain this Writ Petition taking stand against the Manufacturer. He added that the Petitioner received Rs.50,000/- as per Ext.P4 Interim Order from the Respondent No.1 and thereafter challenged Ext.P4 Order which can not be permitted. 7. Ext.P7 Revision is seen filed by the Opposite Parties in the Complaint, jointly who are the Manufacturer and Dealer. Thereafter the Opposite Party No.1/Dealer alone cannot be allowed to maintain the Writ Petition challenging Ext.P8 Revisional Order taking stand against the Manufacturer. This Court admitted the Writ Petition and granted interim stay as prayed for in this Writ Petition. 7. Ext.P7 Revision is seen filed by the Opposite Parties in the Complaint, jointly who are the Manufacturer and Dealer. Thereafter the Opposite Party No.1/Dealer alone cannot be allowed to maintain the Writ Petition challenging Ext.P8 Revisional Order taking stand against the Manufacturer. This Court admitted the Writ Petition and granted interim stay as prayed for in this Writ Petition. Curiously, the stay opted by the petitioner is to stay all further proceedings in the complaint instead of seeking stay against the impugned order. If the Interim Order was limited to the stay of Exts.P4 Interim Order and Ext.P7 Revisional Order, the Forum would have decided the complaint of the year 2014 long before. It is obvious that the intention of the petitioner is to defeat the complaint somehow. Admittedly, the petitioner challenged Ext.P4 Order after receiving Rs.50,000/- ordered therein by the Forum. The practices adopted by the petitioner are highly deprecated. The receipt of Rs 50000/- by the petitioner from the Respondent No.1 in compliance with Ext P4 order would have the effect of the Respondent No.1 accepting the Ext P4 order. I am of the view that after accepting the impugned order, the party cannot turn around and challenge the same. On these reasons, I could have dismissed the Writ Petition straight away. But since the matter has been pending here for long with stay of the Forum proceedings and since it is not practical to implement Ext.P4 Interim Order at this distance of time, I decide to consider the matter on merits, though with much reluctance. That apart, the dismissal of the Writ Petition would not render justice to the Respondent No.1/Consumer. 8. The vehicle involved is of the year 2008 and the Ext.P4 Impugned Order directing to make the vehicle roadworthy is of the year 2014. The Original Registration of the vehicle is for 15 years which is over by now. There is no meaning in directing now to conduct repair of the vehicle with respect to a manufacturing defect alleged to have shown in the year 2014. Ext.P2 Complaint of the year 2014 shows that the main grievance of the Respondent No.1 herein is with respect to the manufacturing defect of a Skoda Car which he purchased in the year 2008. It is seen that Ext.P4 Interim Order substantially decided the complaint itself through an Interim Order which is quite impermissible. Ext.P2 Complaint of the year 2014 shows that the main grievance of the Respondent No.1 herein is with respect to the manufacturing defect of a Skoda Car which he purchased in the year 2008. It is seen that Ext.P4 Interim Order substantially decided the complaint itself through an Interim Order which is quite impermissible. There were no materials before the Forum to decide the prayer of the Respondent No.1 in Ext.P3 Interim Application before taking evidence in the matter. The petitioner/Dealer cannot be directed to repair the vehicle by taking mere undertaking from the Respondent No.1/Consumer. It would be difficult for the Dealer to recover the value of repair in case the complaint is dismissed later. Non-appearance or non-filing of Objection by the Opposite parties would not justify the Forum to pass illegal orders in favor of the Complainant. The Forum is legally bound to consider the merits of the claim on the basis of the materials placed before it rather than passing orders simply relying on the averments in the complaint without considering the consequences of the Order. 9. When the above parameters are applied, I have no option other than to set aside Ext.P4 Order which is confirmed in Ext.P8 Revisional Order. But the interest of justice demands that it shall be subject to strict condition to be complied with the petitioner. The petitioner, being a commercial establishment, has been utilizing Rs.50,000/- paid by the Respondent No.1 for its commercial purpose for the last nearly 10 years. It is equitable to compensate the Respondent No.1 for depriving use of his valuable money retained by the petitioner. Taking into account the totality of the above circumstances, including the conduct of the petitioner I find it just and proper to order the petitioner to return Rs.50,000/- with interest thereon @18% per annum from the date of receipt of the same by the petitioner to the date of payment to the Respondent No.1 as a condition for setting aside Exts.P4 and P7 Orders. 10. 10. Hence I allow this Writ Petition setting aside Exts.P4 and P8 Orders so far as it relate to the petitioner, on condition that the petitioner shall return Rs.50,000/- to the Respondent No.1 with interest thereon @18% per annum from the date of receipt of the same by the petitioner to the date of payment to the Respondent No.1, within a period of ONE MONTH from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment. In case of failure on the part of the petitioner to comply with the above condition, this Writ Petition would stand dismissed confirming Exts.P4 and P8 Orders and the Forum will be free to execute Ext.P4 Order. 11. Since the complaint is of the year 2014 I direct the CDRF, Ernakulam to dispose of the said complaint as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the copy of this judgment. The Writ Petition is allowed as above.