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

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 nutshell is that the complainant has incurred loan of Rs.1,93,000/- from the OP to purchase a car. Out of said amount Rs.84,024/- was deposited as down payment. It was agreed between the parties that the loan would be repaid in 48 monthly instalments within a period from 1.3.2007 to 01.2.2011. Complainant alleged inter alia that he has deposited Rs.16,400/- on 13.6.2009. On 12.6.2009 complainant again received message from the OP that his vehicle would be seized if the further amount is not paid towards loan amount. Thereafter, also the complainant paid Rs.6,000/-. That apart it is alleged that on behalf of the complainant his father also paid Rs.16,400/- on 13.6.2009. Again the complainant on 15.6.2009 received a letter to deposit Rs.22,578.41. Then the complainant deposited Rs.22,400/- towards loan amount and delay payment charges (DPC). However, the OP went on asking to pay further amount. Challenging the demand as deficiency in service the complaint was filed.

4.      OP filed written version refuting the allegations made in the complaint. It is stated that the allegations made in the complaint are false. So, there is no any deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

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

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

            Thus under the circumstances we direct the OP to pay Rs.20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand) only to the complainant for compensation for harassment and the complainant is also not liable to pay the DPC of Rs.1,563.41 to OP. The above amount has to be paid by the OP to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which the OP would be liable to pay @ 12% interest per annum on the awarded amount from the date of receipt of this order till the date of actual payment.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the written version filed by the OP with proper perspectives. According to him the learned District Forum has not considered the statement of account in proper perspectives. There is no any conclusion arrived by the learned District Forum after framing the issues. The demand of further amount is made after due calculation of the loan account. Therefore, 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 DFR including the impugned order.

8.      It is admitted fact that the complainant has incurred loan from the OP to purchase a car and he has made down payment. It is also admitted fact that repayment of loan was made on 15.6.2009. It is also admitted fact that complainant has been paying the instalments in 2009 whenever there is demand made by the OP. The statement of account shows that the payment has been made from time to time by the complainant. The demand notice dated 15.6.2009 shows that Rs.22,578.50 was asked to be paid. The loan receipt shows that the loan has been paid and by the time of demand he has deposited the amount of Rs.22,400/-. We have gone through the impugned order and find that the learned District Forum has meticulously gone through the statement of account and there is nothing to interfere with the impugned order. However, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the compensation amount is in higher side for harassment of the complainant.

9.      Considering the amount as ordered in 2009, we reduce it to Rs.15,000/- as compensation payable by the OP to the complainant within 45 days failing which it will carry interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of impugned order till the ate of payment. Rest part of the impugned order remains unaltered.

          The appeal is disposed of. No cost.

           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.