Learned counsel for the parties are present.

On the request and consent of learned counsel for the parties, the revision petition is taken up for hearing and disposal at the stage of admission.

In this revision petition, revision petitioner has made prayer to set aside order dated 25.4.2019 passed by the learned District Forum, Sundargarh – I  in Misc. Case No. 17 of 2019 arising out of CC No. 25 of 2019.

The revision petitioner representing financer is the OP whereas the OP in this revision petition is the complainant before the learned District Forum.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Upon hearing the submissions and upon perusal of materials on record, it appears that along with the complaint petition the complainant filed an interim application u/s 13(3B) of the Consumer Protection Act in response to which ex parte interim order dated 2.2.2019 which reads as follows was passed:-

“The complainant has filed a petition u/s 13(3B) of C.P.Act requesting the Forum for a direction to the Ops not to seized/repossessed the vehicle bearing Regd.No.OD-16D-2257 till disposal of the C.C.case.

Heard on the interim application. Perused the documents available with the record. After hearing the complainant/petitioner who is present personally before the Forum, we find that there is a prima facie case and also for the balance of convenience lies in favour of the complainant/petitioner and irreparable loss and injury will be caused to the complainant/petitioner if interim order is not granted to the complainant/petitioner. Hence the interim application is allowed.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby direct the Ops are restrained from seizing/Repossessing the finance vehicle of the complainant/petitioner bearing Regd.No.OD-16D-2257 until further order.”

          It is not disputed that the financer filed an objection to the interim application on 16.2.2019. It is apparent that the objection was not heard and disposed of within the period of 45 days as mandated under Regulation 17 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005 instead the impugned order was passed on 25.4.2019. The impugned order reads as follows:-

“The case record is put up today as it is filed for further hearing of the petition as filed by the petitioner so also objection petition as filed by the O.ps against the misc. case, praying for lease of the seized financed vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-16D-2257 kept by the O.P. under his custody. The petitioner/complainant is present personally. Advocate for the O.Ps are absent today. No steps taken on their behalf.

Heard from the complainant in absence of the O.ps, perused the documents available in the case record. The misc. case has been passed by this Forum on dtd. 02.02.2019 and directed to the O.ps not to seize the vehicle until further order but the O.ps have already seized the vehicle on dtd.08.03.2019 in spite of received the misc. case order and avoiding the order of this Forum. We are satisfied in the above facts and circumstances and the present matter warranting to grant relief which would be justify in favour of the complainant as the case for an interim relief has been made out and exigencies of the situation demand that the interim relief is must in the interest of justice and in the fact and situation obtained in the particular matter.

Accordingly the petitions are allowed. The O.P No.1 & O.P.No.2 are hereby directed to release  the vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-16D-2257 in favour of the complainant namely Gulam Sabir, after receiving one outstanding instalment dues from the complainant of Rs.64,650/- till date of seizure without charging any other charges, within 05 days from the date of receiving of this order. The complainant is also directed to continue his current monthly instalment.”

          It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that since the objection filed by the revision petitioner was not finally disposed of within the period stipulated under Regulation 17 of the Consumer Protection Regulations, 2005, the ex parte interim order dated 2.2.2019 stood automatically vacated. In such circumstances, the impugned order is without jurisdiction.

In reply, learned counsel for the complainant/OP submits that impugned order dated 25.4.2019 was passed in response to another application filed by the complainant.

Perusal of the impugned order does not reveal filing of another application by the complainant. It also does not reveal that the revision petitioner was given any opportunity for filing objection against any such application. Therefore, in the absence of any material to indicate that the order was passed in response to another application is not acceptable.

In view of the above, since the ex parte interim order dated 2.2.2019 was no more available to be extended or modified on 25.4.2019, the impugned order dated 25.4.2019 is not sustainable.

Therefore, the revision petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 25.4.2019 is set aside.

The OP/complainant is at liberty to file fresh interim application in the event of which the learned District Forum shall proceed to dispose of the same in accordance with law.