Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

2.     Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the learned District Commission,Jagatsinghpur has passed the order on 06.04.2022 U/S 38(8) of C.P.Act,2019 (hereinafter called “The Act” for not repossessing the vehicle. He further submitted that on 17.05.2022, the order was made absolute leaving rest to be decided at the disposal of consumer complaint. The OP has challenged the order before this Commission. This Commission passed the order on 18.5.2022 by revising the order dated 06.04.2022.  Thereafter, learned District Commission posted the matter for hearing on the complaint case. But an execution petition was filed by the complainant,the O.P seized the vehicle by not obeying the order passed by this Commission and learned District Commission. It is only alleged by the petitioner that the learned District Commission has passed the impugned order on 12.10.2022 by disposing of the execution application. But the provisions U/S 71 and 72 should have been followed. Therefore, he prayed for fresh disposal of the execution proceeding.

3.     At the time of admission, we feel to dispose of the revision petition.

4.     Considered the petition of the petitioner. We have gone through the pleadings and documents. The operative portion of the impugned order dated 12.10.2022  of the learned District Commission is as follows:-

                “xxx                     xxx                         xxx

          However, complainant shall pay first instalment within three weeks from the date of receipt of the vehicleand try to give regular installments. We therefore direct opposite parties to immediately release the vehicle preferably within a week without charging any repossession and stock yard charges as the vehicle has been repossessed in spite of order of Hon’ble State Commission and release order of the vehicle may be submitted before this Commission for compliance of the order. With the aforesaid observation and direction the Execution Application is disposed of without any cost.”

5.     Challenging the order dated 6.4.2022 passed by the learned District Commission, Jagatsinghpur, opposite parties filed R.P No.27/2022 before  this Commission and  this Commission vide order dated 18.05.2022 directed as under:-

                “xxx      xxx      xxx

Considered the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the impugned order. There is no defect in exercising the jurisdiction by the learned District Commission. But when there is arrear amount pending against the complainant, the impugned order passed by the learned District Commission is defective by passing such order without any condition imposed on the complainant. Therefore, the revision petition is disposed of by revising the impugned order to the extent that the O.ps shall not take any coercive action against the complainant and the vehicle subject to deposit of Rs.60,000/- by the complainant with the O.ps within four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.”

6.     The above impugned order dated  12.10.2022 was passed in execution application arising out of C.C.Case No.62/2022  and the misc.case No.53 of 2022.  Section - 71of the Act   described Enforcement of orders of District Commission, State Commission and National Commission and Section 72 of the Act described penalty for noncompliance of order.

7.     The aforesaid impugned order clearly shows that proper procedure has not been followed. So, the impugned order is set aside by remitting the matter  to the learned District Commission,Jagatsinghpur for fresh disposal and the learned District Commission is  directed to hear the matter U/S 71 and 72  of the C.P.Act,2019 and pass speaking order after hearing  both parties in accordance with law within the period of 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned District Commission on 20.02.2023 to take further instruction from it.

8.     Revision petition is disposed of accordingly.