Learned counsel for the appellant is present.

2.                Learned counsel for the respondent is present.  

3.       Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and respondent.  This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act).

4.          The appellant was the OP whereas the respondent was the complainant before the learned District Forum. Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

5.      In short the case of the complainant is that the complainant  purchased a Tipper after obtaining loan from the OP under the terms and conditions of the agreement to pay off the loan in 47 instalments. The complainant allegedly paid certain instalments but could not pay some instalments due to bad health. The OP threatened to repossess  the vehicle due to non-payment of loan. So, the complaint was filed by the complainant.

6.        The OP filed written version stating that there was agreement between the parties that in case of non-payment of instalment, the Arbitration clause in the agreement can be pressed into service and accordingly they have preferred arbitration and arbitrator has given the award on 12.06.2012 prior to  complaint filed. The written version further states that in view of the award the complaint is not maintainable. Moreover, due to agreement between the parties, the OP can repossess the vehicle when complainant admittedly did not pay all instalments.

7.         Learned District Forum, after hearing both the parties, passed  the following order:-

                Xxx              xxx                              xxx

“      In views of above discussions and observations, the complaint is to be allowed. The complaint is allowed in part. The Ops shall not demand any extra amount other than the EMIs from the complainant till completion of the contract period and not to seize the vehicle any more. The complainant shall pay the forthcoming installments to the Ops regularly till completion of the contract period.No order as to compensation or costs.”

8.          Learned  counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum erred in  law by passing the aforesaid order as it amounts to rewrite of the contract which is not permissible as per settled principle of law. Learned District Forum has committed error in law by not going through the material on record. The impugned order be set-aside by allowing the appeal.

9.      Learned counsel for the respondent supports the impugned order.

10.       Considered the submission of both the parties, after going through the pleadings and DFR and impugned order it appears that the operative portion of the impugned order is really interpretation of the contract between the parties and interpretation is not permissible under law. When there is agreement  that OP can repossess the vehicle in case of default payment, learned District Forum can not go behind the agreement. It is true that EMI should be paid by the complainant and there is no any departure of his opinion but direction to pay installations till completion of the contract without perusing the entire agreement on such facts and circumstances is equally interpretation of the contract which is not permissible under law.  Therefore, the impugned order of the learned District Forum is not acceptable   and hence it is set-aside.

             The appeal stands allowed.

              Free copy of order be supplied to the respective parties.

            Statutory amount be refunded.

            DFR be sent back forthwith.