Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. None appears for the respondent.

2.        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.

3.       The case  of the complainant, in nutshell  is that  the complainant has purchased  a truck bearing Regd. No.OR-23-8287 being financed by  OP No.1. It is alleged inter-alia that  one hypothecation agreement was executed by both the parties  containing terms and conditions to pay back the entire amount  in 45 equal monthly installments. It is alleged that on 22.10.2007  the OP without any notice  or information to the complainant has repossessed  the vehicle.  Being aggrieved  by such action of the OP, the complainant filed the complaint.

4.          The OP No.2 & 3 are set-exparte.

5.         The OP No.1  filed written version stating that the complaint is a chronic defaulter  and as per the terms and conditions  they have  repossessed the vehicle, which was still lying  with the OP.  Therefore, they have no deficiency in service on their part.

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

                      Xxxx         xxxxx           xxxxxxx

                      In view of the interim order passed by this Forum on 13.11.2007 although the complainant has deposited the unpaid arrear installment amount, the vehicle has not yet been released by the OPs. Hence, the complainant is entitled to compensation. Hence order:

                The complaint petition is allowed. The OP No.1 is directed to release the vehicle in favour of the complainant with immediate effect in the same condition as it was at the time of seizure/repossession by the OPs. The OP No.1  is further  directed to pay to the complainant a sum of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees  Thirty thousand) towards compensation  alongwith Rs.500/- (Rupees Five  hundred) towards cost of the proceeding within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”

           The case is disposed of accordingly.”

7.               Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not going through the written version filed by OP No.1 with proper perspectives. According to him  the agreement  has not been perused by the learned District Forum. In the agreement  itself there is clear clause at 17 that  in case of default  to pay, without any notice, the vehicle can be repossessed by the OP. Learned District Forum  has passed the impugned order  which is not sustainable in law. Therefore,  he submitted that 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 settled in law that the complainant has to prove his case and the deficiency in service on the part of the OP. It is admitted fact that  the complainant has purchased the vehicle being financed from OP No.1. It is also not in dispute that there is hypothecation agreement executed between the parties specifying the terms and conditions. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle has been repossessed by the OP.  Now only the question arises whether the seizure of the vehicle is deficiency in service on the part of the OP. No doubt the pleadings are clear to show that there is outstanding of Rs.2,30,000/- against the complainant.  The cause-17(2)(i) of the agreement is as follows:-

             “without  any notice  and assigning any reason and at the risk and expense  of the  Borrower  and if necessary as Attorney for and in the name of the Borrower  take charge and/or possession  of seize,recover,appoint receiver of and remove the Hypothecated  Vehicles. The Bank  will be within its rights to use Two-van  to carry away the vehicle.”

10.         In view of aforesaid clause  that in case of default the vehicle can be repossessed without any notice to the complainant.  When, it is admittedly complainant is  defaulter, the repossession of the vehicle can not be said illegal. Therefore, the seizure of the vehicle by the OP is not deficiency in service on the part of the OP. Learned District Forum has not discussed  the details in their order. Therefore, such impugned order is liable to be set-aside. It is set-aside.

                   Appeal consequently stands allowed. No cost.

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

                              DFR be sent back forthwith.