This revision is directed against the interim order dated 14.8.2018 passed by the learned District Forum, Jagatsinghpur in Misc. Case No. 56 of 2018 arising out of CC No. 84 of 2018 directing the revision petitioner financer not to take any coercive action for repossession of the financed vehicle upon receipt of one instalment from the OP/complainant.

         Heard learned counsel for the parties.

         Learned counsel for the OP/complainant submits that he has no instruction from the OP/complainant.

         The impugned order in its entirety reads as follows:-

“The complainant has filed this misc. case against the opposite parties for illegal threatening to repossess of his vehicle. On dt.02.7.2018 this Forum directed the opposite parties not to repossess the vehicle and not to take any coercive action against in respect to the aforesaid vehicle till dt.24.7.2018.

The opposite parties filed the written statement and prayed before this Forum to dismiss the misc. case for the interest of justice.

Heard both parties. Perused the materials found on the record, it is clear that the complainant is liable to pay Rs.1,65,756.09 paisa as on 09.7.2018 including overdue interest and other charges as per written version filed by opposite parties.

Hence it is ordered, that the opposite parties are directed to receive one installment from the complainant within one month and not to take any coercive action against the complainant in respect to the aforesaid vehicle bearing No.OD-05-Z-4155 till disposal of consumer complaint and the order dtd. 02.7.2018 is hereby made absolute, leaving the rest to be decided at the time of disposal of consumer complaint.”

          It is contended by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that though the revision petitioner filed written version as well as objection stating therein that outstanding arrear EMIs against the OP/complainant as on 9.7.2018 was Rs.1,65,756.09, learned District Forum passed the impugned order without assigning any reason.

          It is further submitted that in the meanwhile, by way of interim measure, order has been passed in arbitral proceeding on 12.9.2018 accordingly permission to repossess the financed vehicle. As such the financer has obtained an order in accordance with law and in terms of the agreement between the parties for repossession of the vehicle.

          Having heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner and upon perusal of the materials on record including copy of the objection and written version filed before the learned District Forum as well as copy of the interim order passed by the arbitrator, we do not find that the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner is unfounded.

          Though the learned District Forum accepted the contention that there was outstanding dues of Rs.1,65,756.09 against the OP/complainant, without assigning any reason, direction has been made not to take any coercive action upon receipt of one instalment which is found to be Rs.58,940/-.  No  basis having been assigned in passing the order for release of vehicle on receipt of one instalment only, the impugned order amounts to non-speaking order and is not sustainable in law.

          In view of the above, revision petition is allowed and the impugned interim order is set aside.

           It is submitted by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner that before communication of the impugned order to the revision petitioner the financed vehicle has been repossessed. In such circumstances, it is observed that in case the OP/complainant clears the entire outstanding dues within a period of three weeks from today, the repossessed vehicle shall be released in favour of the OP/complainant.