Learned counsel for the parties are present.

On consent and request of the parties, the revision petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

In this revision petition, the revision petitioner has made prayer to set aside  the ex parte interim order dated 5.4.2019 passed by the learned District Forum, Sambalpur in CC No. 6 of 2019.

The revision petitioner financer is the OP wherein the OP in this revision petition is the complainant before the learned District Forum.

The impugned order stated to have been passed in exercise of power u/s 13(3B) of Consumer Protection Act in its entirety reads as follows:-

“The present complainant filed this case against above named OP who has forcibly repossessed the vehicle No.OD-15E-3767 on dated 15.12.2018 on pretext of nonpayment of due amount. We perused the present case. Register the C.C.Case. The Case is admitted.

The present complainant file one interim petition under section 13(3B) of C.P.Act 1986.

We perused the said petition. The present complainant along with her advocate were present. The complainant presented her case before this Forum. According to her she took the loan of Rs.22,30,000/- on dated 30.9.2015 at the rate of 7% per annum repayable in equal monthly installment of 60 EMI vide loan agreement dt.30.9.15.

The complainant is an illiterate lady and only she can sign her name in Hindi. Taking advantage of an illiterate lady, the OP did not provide any copy of agreement form or any other documents pertaining to grant of the said loan. The OP use to send their agent to receive the installments, but they have never issued any money receipt to the complainant, according to her. Besides taking advantage of her innocence, she was not informed as to how much she owes to the OP. after payment of each installment. She was kept in dark. The complainant personally narrated how the OPs use to charge 5,000/- to 10,000/- rupees extra for receiving delayed payment. We have personally interviewed the complainant and have come to a conclusion that she is not making any false statement. She is also bread earner of the family as her husband is in-capable of maintaining the family. The forcible repossession of the vehicle has deprived the family of their livelihood.

We are convinced that, the OP has taken law into their hands by seizing the vehicles by employing Gundas, as per the version of the complainant. She has narrated that she has already paid around 26 lakh to the OPs and only 3 more installments are due. So the OP should have sparred repossession and at least send notice for repayment. But the Op did not do so and forcibly without rhyme and reason repossessed the vehicle employing force. This speaks volume about their modus operandi.

After taking all the factor stated above into consideration, we are inclined to exercise the power given to us under section 13(3B) of the C.P.Act, 1986. Accordingly we order the OP to provide actual account statement and other necessary document to the complainant and release the above no. vehicle forthwith on receipt of this order. If the OP fails to release the above vehicle then he is to pay Rs1000/- each day of delay of releasing the vehicle to the complainant. As the OP has deprived the complainant proper lively hood by snatching the vehicle illegally by employing Gundas, we are not inclined to order any amount to be paid by the complainant to the OP at this stage. The payment of any due by the complainant to the OP will be decided in the C.C.

Issue notice to OP fixing 15.5.2019 for filing written statement.”

In assailing the legality of the impugned order, it is strenuously contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that though the impugned order has been passed ex parte, no opportunity has been given to the revision petitioner to file objection to the interim application. The impugned order amounts to passing of the final order in the garb of ex parte interim order. Therefore, the impugned order on the face of it is not sustainable.

Learned counsel for the OP does not dispute that revision petitioner has not been given opportunity to file objection to the ex parte interim order.

Learned District Forum should not have passed an ex parte interim order which is final in nature without giving opportunity to the revision petitioner to be heard on the interim application. Therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable.

Accordingly, the revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the OP that the OP is ready to pay the outstanding amount and current EMI to the revision petitioner.

In reply learned counsel for the revision petitioner submits that the revision petitioner has no objection whatsoever for release of the vehicle in case the arrear amount is paid.

It is open to the parties to arrive an amicable settlement of the dispute before the learned District Forum.