Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for respondent No.4. None appears for other respondents.

2.      This 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 unfolded story of the complainant is that the complainant had purchased a Tata Truck bearing Registration No. OR-02-BH-134 from OP No.4 on 28.8.2010. The complainant allegedly has incurred financial assistance from OP No.3 for Rs.6,33,000/- and out of that he had already deposited margin money of Rs.2,71,371/-. The complainant alleged inter alia that after plying the vehicle for few months, the truck gave serious defect and the vehicle stopped on the way. So the complainant has complained before OP No.1. However, on 3.5.2011, the complainant also faced the trouble for which he has handed over the vehicle to OP No.4 which was repaired for Rs.8,000/- and said cost was paid by the complainant. Thereafter, also the vehicle gave repeated defects. Complainant allegedly has spent lot of money for repairing of the vehicle. Due to breakdown of the vehicle the complainant suffered a lot. In spite of repeated request the vehicle could not be repaired, he filed the consumer complaint.

4.      OP Nos. 1, 2 and 3 filed written version. OP No.4 did not file written version. It is only allegation of OP Nos. 1 and 2 that the complainant has not adduced any expert opinion to find out the defective parts in the vehicle. They also submitted that the complainant is not a ‘consumer’ because he has purchased the same for commercial purpose. The complainant has not availed the  recommended service in due time. Since the vehicle has not come for the required free service and vehicle has also run 56,723 kms by 15.7.2011,  OP Nos. 1 and 2 have no deficiency of service for the repairs being done regularly.

5.      OP No.3 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable. It is further case of OP No.3  that complainant has defaulted on payment of instalments although loan has been sanctioned to him. Moreover, complainant has not alleged about deficiency of service of OP No.3.

6.      Learned District Forum after hearing both parties passed the following impugned order.

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

            The complaint is allowed on contest. The opp.parties No.1, 2 & 4 are  directed to refund the cost of repair and spare parts of Rs.8,740/- & Rs.8,0002.80 to the complainant which was received during the period of warranty. The opp.party No.3 is directed to refund the total amount received from the complainant towards margin money of Rs.2,71,371/-, Rs.3,27,914/- received towards installment dues and Rs.80,000/- totaling a sums of Rs.6,79,285/- (Rupees six lack seventy nine thousand and two hundred eighty five) only towards settlement of account to the complainant within a period of one month failing which the opp.parties shall be liable to pay compensatory interest @ 12% from the date of payment till its refund. Besides, the opp.parties are liable to pay cost of the litigation @ Rs.2,000/- each to the complainant.”

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by making OP No.3 liable to refund the entire amount as described therein without going through the written version of OP No.3. He further submitted that the complainant’s complaint petition does not disclose any relief against the OP. So he submitted to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.

8.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for   the respective parties and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

9.      It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the vehicle from OP No.4 and it is not in dispute that OP Nos. 1 and 2 are manufacturer of the vehicle in question and OP No.3 is the financer. It is admitted fact that OP No.3 has sanctioned loan payable to the complainant and the complainant has admittedly deposited Rs.2,71,371/- as margin money. Complaint shows that there is only allegation that repeated defects appeared after the vehicle allowed to ply. There is no iota of allegation against OP No.3. Also there is no relief claimed against OP No.3 but the learned District Forum has absolutely thrown the burden on OP No.3 for refund the amount already paid by the complainant. When the complaint is silent about relief and the learned District Forum granted relief against that person, it must be held that the learned District Forum has made out a third  case which is not permissible by adjudicating body. The dispute always to be resolved by the adjudicating body basing on the pleadings filed by both the parties.

10.    Apart from this,  OP No.3/appellant has already filed written version stating that the complainant is a defaulter in payment of entire loan  amount out of instalments agreed. When the allegation is against the manufacturer company OP Nos. 1 and 2 and OP No.3 is only financer, the learned District Forum ought to have discussed the material basing on which the OP No.3 is required to refund the money already they have received on instalment and the margin money for  sanction of loan. It is only available from the impugned order of the learned District Forum that due to manufacturing defect in the vehicle the loan should not be paid back. When the OP No.3 is independent of OP Nos. 1 and 2, the question of having liability on OP No.3 is beyond imagination.

11.    In view of the above, this Commission is of the view that the finding of the learned District Forum is not sustainable in law and as such is liable to be set aside and is set aside.

12.    The appeal stands allowed. No cost.

            DFR be sent back forthwith.

          Statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellant with interest accrued thereon if any on proper identification.

           Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties.