Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.

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

3.      It is revealed from the pleadings that the one Kailash Prasad Sharma, brother of the complainant has incurred loan from the OP  No. 3 – Bank for Rs.2,74,000/- and purchased a car  from OP No.1. It is alleged  that the Op No. 3 assured to send all documents  but the complainant found that the documents were not sent  for which complaint case was filed.

4.      OP Nos. 1 and 3 filed written version stating that they have sold the vehicle for Rs. 3,64,200/- against exchange of old vehicle only for Rs.90,000/- and as such balance amount of Rs.2,74,200/- has been paid by Op No. 3 financer. OP No. 1 admitted tht Op No. 3 has financed the vehicle and OP No. 3 also admitted to have financed the vehicle. So, there is no deficiency  in service on their part.

5.      After hearing both the parties, the learned District Forum passed the following order:-
                             “xxx     xxxxxx

The Op No. 3 financer is directed to pay to the OP No.1 – dealer an amount of Rs.14,835/- (Rupees fourteen thousand eight hundred and thirty five) only towards balanceof the price of theSantro-XI car bearing Chassis No. MALAA51HR7M079137, Engine No. GUHG7M093688 delivered vide challan No. 962 within one month from the date of receipt of this order whereafterwithin one week from the date of receipt of the saidamount the OP No. 1 shall deliver all the relevantdocuments of the said Santro-XI car to its purchaser. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case thereshall be no order as to payment of any compensation for any harassment and mental torture or towards any other entitlements as claimed by thecomplainant. No costs.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant admitted that  the matter has already been solved, loan has been closed and NOC has been issued in favour of the complainant and as such, there is no deficiency in service. So, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

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

8.      Since NOC has already been issued and loan has been paid back, we  are of the view that no cause of action services. Therefore, the impugned order  is liable to be set aside and is set aside.

9.      The appeal stands allowed. No cost.

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

          DFR be sent back forthwith.

        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.