Not satisfied with the relief given by the State Commission vide its order dated 27.1.2006 passed by the U.P. State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Lucknow (in short, the ‘State Commission’) in complaint case no.126 of 2002, the original complainant – Yashveer Singh has filed the present appeal. The complaint before the State Commission was filed alleging manufacturing defect in a Leyland vehicle manufactured by OP-1 Ashok Leyland and sold by T.V. Sundram Iyegar & Sons Ltd. dealer to the complainant, the complainant having obtained financial assistance to purchase the vehicle from M/s Ashok Leyland Finance Ltd. with whom the vehicle in question was hypothecated. Besides alleging manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question, it was alleged that the vehicle in question was repossessed by the above-named Finance Company purportedly on the ground that the complainant had committed default in making the payment of some installments. The complaint was resisted by the opposite parties - manufacturer and the dealer denying any manufacturing defect in the vehicle in question and explaining that whatever defect was pointed out in the vehicle by the complainant was rectified to his satisfaction. The Finance Company pleaded that the vehicle in question was repossessed by them in exercise of their right under clause 8A of the terms and conditions of the hypothecation agreement inasmuch as the complainant had failed to pay the remaining installments after paying 14 installments. After repossessing the vehicle in question, it was sold for a sum of Rs.1,80,000/- by following the due procedure. The State Commission on consideration of the respective pleas and going by the statement of the complainant that he had incurred expenditure of Rs.95,000/- in carrying out the repairs / replacement of the long arms of the vehicle, however, partly allowed the complaint and directed the OP-1 manufacturer to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/-. The State Commission , however, found no manufacturing defect in the vehicle as alleged by the complainant. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and counsel representing the Respondent No.1 - Manufacturer and the Finance Company and considered their submissions. Learned counsel for the manufacturer has brought to our notice that the manufacturer has accepted the finding and order of the State commission by paying the amount awarded to the complainant, which is not disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. Counsel for the appellant would, however, assail the impugned order primarily on the ground that the State Commission has failed to consider the other allegations made by the complainant in regard to the illegal, unauthorized and highhanded action of the Finance Company in repossessing the vehicle and auctioning the same at a throw away price of Rs.1,80,000/-, which was done without issuing any notice. It was also contended that the vehicle had been repossessed under the pretext of replacing the long arms of the vehicle for which the complainant had been awaiting for a long time. He contends that these acts/omissions on the part of the Finance Company also amount to deficiency in service on the part of the Finance Company as a result of which, complainant has suffered loss, injury besides mental harassment, etc. On the other hand, counsel for the Finance Co. submits that the case set up by the complainant in his complaint was primarily in regard to manufacturing defect in the vehicle rather than any deficiency on the part of the Finance Company and that the factum of repossession and sale of the vehicle by the Finance Company were incidentally mentioned as a sequence of events which has taken place up till the time of filing of the complaint. After bestowing our thoughtful consideration and on perusal of the pleadings of the parities more particularly the averments and allegations made in the complaint, we have no manner of doubt that the complainant wanted to raise consumer dispute not only in regard to the defects in the vehicle in question purchased by him but also in regard to the omissions and actions taken by the Finance Company inasmuch as in para 46 of the complaint, the complainant has shown the expenditure of 5,71,000/- incurred by him in the following heads: “(a) Margin money paid of : Rs.1,21,000/- (b) Installments paid of : Rs.2,25,000/- (c) Insurance and Registration of : Rs.25,000/- (d) Body construction of : Rs.1,05,000/- (e) Expenses on maintenance on broken frames of : Rs.95,000/-“ 3. In the written version filed on behalf of Opposite Party Nos. 3 & 4 - Finance Company, they have denied deficiency on their part and rather justified their action by explaining the circumstances in which the vehicle was repossessed and ultimately sold out. Despite these pleadings, surprisingly the State Commission has not at all dwelt on those pleadings and contentions and has focused its entire attention only on the part of the complaint where manufacturing defect in the vehicle was alleged. If that was so, why the complainant could have impleaded Opposite Party Nos. 3 & 4. The grievance of the complainant was also against of the opposite parties – manufacturer and dealer for selling the defective vehicle suffering from certain defects which is in his reckoning a manufacturing defect and Opposite Party Nos. 3 & 4 were alleged for deficiency in service for un-authorisedly repossessing the vehicle and selling it without following the terms and conditions of the hypothecation agreement and also against the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court and various other forums from time to time in that behalf. 4. On the face of this position, we are of the view that the complaint should be remitted back to the State Commission for deciding it afresh in regard to the alleged deficiency by the complainant on the part of Opposite Party Nos. 3 & 4 – the Finance Company in repossessing the vehicle and selling it out. 5. In the result, appeal partly succeeds and the complaint is remitted back to the State Commission for deciding the same afresh in the above terms. No order as to costs in these proceedings. Parties are direct to appear before the State Commission on 13.10.2010.