Heard the learned counsel for the appellant at the stage of admission on the appeal.

2.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant has filed the complaint alleging the fact that the O.Ps have not supplied the copy of the agreement but  tried to repossess the vehicle. The complainant further alleged that the complaint case is for not to repossess the vehicle, direction to supply the copy of the agreement and rather to pay the installment dues. The complainant has also filed a petition U/S 38(8) of C.P.Act,2019 (herein called the Act) to ask the O.Ps not to repossess the vehicle and the learned District Commission have passed the order  not to repossess the vehicle subject to deposit of  30% of EMI by the complainant. The complainant alleged that he has already paid the EMI but the learned District Commission without verifying the record accepted the version of the O.Ps and dismissed the complaint for non compliance of the impugned order. He also submitted that the learned District Forum has not verified the DFR which shows that he has already complied the impugned order on payment of Rs.1,08,000/- on 19.09.2022 and Rs.71,200/- on 01.11.2022. So he submitted that  this Commission may admit the appeal and pass appropriate order.

3.      We have gone through the impugned order and documents filed by the complainant (appellant). It appears that the learned District Commission has over looked such documents with regard to compliance of the interim order and passed following order:-

“ xxx   xxx    xxx

Heard the advocate for complainant ex-parte. Submission appears to be just and reasonable supported with affidavit. The complainant is maintaining his livelihood by engaging himself and in case the vehicle / asset will be repossess, he will suffer irreparable loss. Considering  the genuine grievance and taking into consideration the circumstances, issue notice to the Opposite parties to file objection if any but in the mean time the opposite parties are directed not to repossess the asset (vehicle) bearing Regd.No.OD-29-G-1777 of the complainant on receipt of 30% of EMIs from the complainant within three weeks from the date of receipt of this order) and not to take any coercive action against the complainant in respect to the aforesaid vehicle till dt.20.09.2022”.

7.      The aforesaid impugned order clearly shows that proper procedure has not been followed because as per Section 38(3)(b) of the Act learned District Commission  ought to have allowed both parties to adduce evidence and then pass final order.  So, the impugned order is set aside by remitting the matter  to the learned District Commission,Jagatsinghpur for denovo hearing and further the learned District Commission is  directed to pass speaking order after hearing  both parties and dispose of the matter in accordance with law within a period of 45 days from today.

8.      The appeal is disposed of accordingly. No cost.

         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.