Heard learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondents.

2.      Here is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

3.   The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant has incurred loan from OP No.1 upon execution of agreement for his vehicle bearing Registration No.AP 26 U 7188. It is alleged inter alia that the loan amount was Rs.3,00,000/- and he has made down payment of Rs.2,61,677/- and agreed  to pay rest of the amount  in  60 equal instalments . It is alleged inter alia that the OP Nos. 1 and 2 without any intimation repossessed the vehicle although the complainant has already paid 36 instalments. Since  OP Nos. 1 and 2 have adopted unfair trade practice, the complainant suffered from harassment and mental agony. So, the complaint was filed.

4.      OP Nos. 1 and 2 filed written version stating that  there was agreement while financing the complaint but the complainant has made default in payment of the instalments as per the agreement. They have not admitted about any repossession of the vehicle. So, there is no any deficiency in service on their part.

5.      After hearing both sides, learned District Forum passed the following order:-

                    “xxx   xxx   xxx

The Forum orders directing the complainant to run the bus to earn his livelihood. The OPs are directed to allow the complainant to pay the rest loan amount in equal instalments  as per the schedule of agreement and also pay a sum of Rs.30,000/-for mental agony and Rs.10,000/- towards cost of litigation to the complainant within 30 days from the date of this order, and if ante -  dated cheques are remaining with the OPs, they shall be treated as null and void and no action on that basis shall be taken by the OPs against the complainant.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that  there is no finding for deficiency in service on the part of  OP Nos. 1 and 2 whereas they have been directed to pay the compensation and cost. He further submitted that OP Nos. 1 and 2 have been directed to allow the complainant to pay the rest loan amount in equal instalments which amounts to rewriting of the contract. So, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for    the appellants and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

8.      It is admitted fact that the complainant has incurred loan from OP Nos. 1 and there was agreement executed. The agreement has not been filed but however, there is no any specific instance to prove that the vehicle has been repossessed. Moreover, there is no finding that there is deficiency in service on the part of the OPs in demanding the defaulted amount. It is settled in law that the court cannot rewrite the agreement. The impugned order shows rewriting of the contract between the parties  while directed to  pay rest of loan on equal instalments, the impugned order lacks brevity and is set aside.

9.      The appeal stands allowed. No cost.

          DFR be sent back forthwith.

         The statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellants with interest accrued thereon, if any on proper identification.

         Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.