Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

2.                  None appears for the respondent.

3.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.       

4.              The case of the complainant, in nutshell is that the complainant had incurred loan from OP for an amount of Rs.7,36,000/- payable in 35 monthly instalments. The complainant has to pay the instalments regularly. On 21.12.2006 the vehicle of the complainant met accident  and he could not pay  the dues. However, due to non-payment of the instalment the vehicle was seized by the OP but later on in 2007 it was realized on payment of all charges including over dues charges. However, the OP claimed further amount of Rs.72,638/- as over due charges as on January,2008. Finding the deficiency in service on the part of the OP by not issuing NOC,  the complaint was filed.

5.           The OP  filed  written version stating that the complainant admittedly was not  in regular payment of instalment and as such   dtd.22.01.2008 there is arrear of Rs.72,738/- payable by the complainant. But he has not paid same for which  NOC was not issued. There is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

6.          After hearing  both the parties, learned
District Forum  passed the following order:-

                  Xxxxx              xxxxxxxx              xxxxxx

“Thus under the above circumstances we direct the Ops not to charge any over dues to the complainant and issue the NOC of the said vehicle to the complainant within 30 days from the receipt of this order failing which the Ops would be liable to pay Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand) only every day after 30 days of receipt of this order till the date of issue of NOC to the complainant.

           The case is disposed of accordingly.”

7.               Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law  by passing the impugned order without going  through the written version with proper perspectives. According to him the complainant after release of the vehicle became defaulter as he has not  paid the instalment due date fixed to pay the instalments. So, they have  issued letter to pay  over dues charges. Learned District Forum has not considered such fact.  So, the impugned order should be set-aside by allowing the appeal.

8.            Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant,  perused the DFR and impugned order.

9.               It is true that the vehicle has been financed by the OP. It is also not in dispute that the OP repossessed  the vehicle in 2007 and the complainant  has paid  of all dues as outstanding by that date  to the OP. The agreement in question  has not been filed. No statement of account is filed to show the over dues charges payable.   It is admitted fact that the complainant has  paid all charges including over dues charges by end of 2007, again charging the over dues charges on 22.01.2008 is not only deficiency in service but unfair trade practice on the part of the OP.

10.             In view of aforesaid circumstances, we are of the view that the learned District Forum after due application   of mind, passed the impugned order, there is nothing to interfere with  it. We hereby modifying  the impugned order of the learned District Forum directing the OP to issue NOC within 45 days  from the date of order, failing which the order of the learned District Forum would  revive.  Rest of the impugned order will remain unaltered.

               Thus,Appeal being devoid of merit  stands dismissed. No cost.

                Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission. 

                DFR be sent back forthwith.