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 in order to purchase one GTrand 10 Sportz CRDI car went to shop  of OP No.1 to purchase said car.   It is alleged  that he also contacted OP No.2 to finance for the purchase of  the car. The complainant alleged to have deposited Rs.9,500/-  on 15.12.2018 in the office of OP No.1 as per latter’s instruction. Again as per instruction of OP No.1 the complainant deposited  Rs.15,000/-  on 19.1.2019 Rs.15,000/- on 27.01.2019. After receiving total Rs.39,500/- the complainant was advised to come lateron to collect  the rest of the loan amount from OP No.2. However, the complainant took the delivery of the vehicle lateron. He got the vehicle registered  bearing Regd.No. OD-19P-0585 dtd.13.02.2019. Later he came to know that  the old vehicle  of year  2015 made  has been sold away It is alleged inter-alia  that  the vehicle gave trouble subsequently because it is a second hand vehicle. Therefore, challenging  about deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the OPs he filed the complaint.

4.                   The OP are  set ex-parte.

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

                      Xxxx         xxxxx           xxxxxxx

                      “The complaint petition is allowed exparte as against OP No.1 & 2 and dismissed against Op No.3. The OP No.1 & 2 are jointly and severally liable for causing deficiency in service and unfair trade practice  with the petitioner. The Op No.2 is directed to delete the total loan amount of the petitioner and refund the monthly installments received from her from the date of disbursement of the loan and take back the old car and recover the loan from OP No.1. The Op No.1 is directed  to refund a sum of Rs.39,500/- (Rupees thirtynine thousand five hundred)  only to the petitioner which has been received from her in three instalments in different dates as stated above with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of receipt till it is refunded to her. The Op No.1 is directed to pay Rs.1,00,.000/-(Rupees One lakh) only to the petitioner towards unfair trade practice, harassment and tension caused to a lady alongwith cost of litigation of Rs.20,000/-(Rupees twenty thousand) only. The order is to be complied within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order.”

6.                Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by directing the OP No.2  to delete the loan amount and to exempt complainant from payment of  entire EMIs  According to him by such direction learned District Forum has re-written the contract which is not permissible under the law. Further he submitted that no notice has been served on them to give opportunity of being heard. Therefore, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by remanding the same to the learned District Commission for  denovo hearing  of the complaint case.

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

8.               It is admitted fact that the complainant had purchased the car after availing  finance from OP No.1. It is also not in dispute that the complainant got the vehicle registered. Learned District Forum has already framed one issue whether the complainant has been provided old car instead of new car. We have gone through the impugned order but  the learned District Forum is  not  found to have considered the case properly because he has  only gone through the complaint petition without any documents relied upon by the complainant. The DFR does not show that the OP No.2 has  been given sufficient opportunity to file written version though he appeared. It  is equally settled in law  that the complainant has to prove his case but at the same time OP No.2 should be given opportunity of being heard. It is also settled in law that the contract can not be re-written by the Court beyond the agreement executed  between the parties.  However, in the instant case the OPs are not given sufficient opportunity of being heard  but order has been passed ex-parte  against them to refund EMI by deleting the loan amount which is not permissible under law because such order is not under the agreement  executed between the parties. So, the appeal is allowed by remanding the matter to the learned District Commission   for denovo hearing.  OP No.2 & 3 should be allowed by the learned District  Commission to file written version within   the stipulated period  after which both complainant and appellant  be allowed to lead evidence if any. All these directions be complied by the  learned District Commission  within a period of 60 days  from the date of receipt of this order. Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to  take the copy of the order and produce it before the District Commission on 19.09.2022  to take further instruction. It is made clear that learned District Forum should not be influence by any observation made above except the principle of law as discussed and  it will decide case on the materials produced before it.

           The  Appeal is disposed of accordingly. 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.