JUSTICE J.M. MALIK 1. Both the fora below have come to the conclusion that there lies a rub in entertaining this case, filed by Smt. Sulakshana Talan, the complainant, because this case pertains to the accounts simpliciter. Aggrieved by that order, the complainant, has approached this Commission. 2. The facts germane to the present revision petition are these. Vide Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement dated 30.03.2007, loan, in the sum of Rs.6,50,000/- was advanced to the complainant to purchase a vehicle, financed by OPs, M/s. Shriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. It was stipulated in the agreement that the said amount would be repayable by the complainant, in 46 monthly installments. The OPs paid a sum of Rs.90,000/- to Sh. Sajid Bhai, the Seller of the vehicle. The complainant was in a position to pay only a sum of Rs.61,300/- and thereafter, she surrendered the vehicle in August, 2007, before OP1. She took the plea that it was not possible for her to pay the remaining installments regularly and to ply the vehicle. She further requested that an amount of finance of Rs.5,88,000/- be adjusted against the sale proceeds. 3. Thereafter, the complainant approached the opposite parties, a number of times and requested for statement of account, but it did not ring the bell. On 10.12.2010, the respondents sent a notice demanding that a sum of Rs.2,20,944/- was still due against the complainant. The said notice was given after three years and five months and was contrary to the provisions of law. The complainant filed the complaint with the following prayers :- A. The Opposite party may be directed to pay the amount of Rs.1,51,300/- along with interest of 18% from the ate August, 2007 to the complainant. B. The opposite party may be directed to cancel the claim of fraudulently issued outstanding of Rs.2,20,944/- (in words Two Lacs twenty thousand nine hundred and forty four Rs.) C. The opposite party may be directed to pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand only) to the complainant for compensation for mental agony caused. D. It may be directed to issue the NOC in favour of the complainant. F. The opposite party may be directed to pay the amount of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five thousand only ) to the complainant due to unfair trade practice) 4. The defence set up by the OPs was that the complainant was a defaulter in payment of installments in time and, therefore, as per the terms of the agreement, an Arbitrator was appointed for settlement of dispute between the parties. One of the terms and conditions of the agreement was that the matter will be decided by the Arbitrator and as such, the consumer fora have no jurisdiction to try this case. It was further explained that as a matter of fact, the loan of Rs.6,50,000/- was given to the complainant vide hypothecation agreement dated 30.03.2007. The complainant was to pay the total amount of Rs.10,43,960/-, which also included the interest, in 46 monthly installments. It is explained that as a matter of fact, the petitioner vide its notice demanded outstanding debt in the sum of Rs.2,20,944/-, but in reality, the amount was wrongly typed. The same is, in fact, the amount of Rs.4,02,471/- which is required to be paid by the complainant. The complainant herself neglected the arbitration proceedings. 5. We have heard the counsel for the petitioner. He vehemently argued that this is a case of accounts and that only civil court has the jurisdiction to try this case. He explained that the vehicle was legally surrendered and legally sold. He could not state, what was the status of the case before Arbitrator or whether, the proceedings were pending again there. 6. All these arguments have left no impression upon us. The subject matter of this case is a vehicle. It is yet to be seen, whether, they are deficient in discharge of their service or have indulged in unfair trade practice. First of all, it was mentioned that an Arbitrator was appointed for settlement of dispute between the parties. Nothing was brought to the notice of this Commission as to what had happened there. 7. Secondly, the vehicle was surrendered in August, 2007, but notice of demand in the sum of Rs.2,20,944/- was sent on 10.12.2010. The recovery of that amount, after the expiry of three years and five months, is obviously, barred by time, so is the claim of the complainant. OPs have been negligent because they did not place any document to show as to what had happened in August, 2007. The vehicle was sold without giving notice to the complainant. On 02.04.2013, we passed the following order :- ated: 02.04.2014 Learned counsel for the respondents submits that both the fora have decided the case in his favour. The petitioner has tried to raise a new plea before the revisional court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to para 8 of the reply to the registered notice, which mentions that the complainant was not served with the notice and the vehicle was re-sold without giving notice to the complainant. This point can be raised at any time. Liberty is given to the respondent/opposite party to produce those documents before us. However, it is made clear that those documents should have been attached with the written version filed against the complaint. The question of late filing of those documents will be considered on the next date. Documents be filed. The matter is adjourned to 5.5.2014 8. The learned counsel for the OPs conceded that no notice for the sale of vehicle was sent to the complainant. He could not inform the Commission, for how much amount, the vehicle was sold. No document, no statement of accounts, no antecedents of the buyer, saw the light of the day. No clear picture begins to jell. It must be borne in mind that the vehicle was sold four months after its purchase. The opposite parties are not supposed to sell the vehicle for a song. The suppression of facts and necessary documents is pernicious to their case. The opposite parties have not come to the Commission with clean hands. They should have given prior notice to the complainant that they were going to sell the vehicle and if she was interested, she could also buy the same. However, the needful was not done. This clearly indicates default on their part and unfair trade practice. They did not disclose, for how much amount, the vehicle was sold and, on which date. How much money was adjusted and how much money was more or less, has not been disclosed. All these form necessary details, which were never disclosed. 9. Dallops of mystery surrounded the case of the opposite parties. Since there was delay of 4 months only, therefore, we assess the depreciation value of the vehicle at the rate of Rs.61,300/-, which already stands paid to the opposite parties. In the absence of solid and unflappable evidence, we hereby order that no amount is payable by any of the parties to the other. To this extent, the complaint is accepted and the notice dated 10.12.2010 is quashed. Both the parties have got no claim against each other. The matter stands disposed of.