The present revision petition has been filed against the order passed by the State Commission whereby the State Commission vide order dated 04.04.2019 has dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner being FA No.15/586 against the order dated 08.04.2015 passed by the District Forum in Consumer Complaint No.459 of 2010. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at admission stage. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that the State Commission has disposed of the appeal filed by the petitioner and no opportunity was given to the appellant. In fact none of the parties were present and the case was decided without hearing any of the parties. Therefore, the matter be remanded back to the State Commission for hearing on merits. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent has entered into a loan agreement with the petitioner and the total loan amount was Rs.1,50,000/- which was to be returned in 24 instalments totalling to Rs.2,11,296/- including finance charges. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the complainant has only paid four instalments amounting to Rs.49,000/- , which is an admitted fact. He further states that the District Forum has allowed the complaint mainly on the ground that the petitioner has not sent any notice to the complainant after possession of the vehicle. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that notice has already sent to the respondent on 20.05.2010. However, the complainant did not took any action that the vehicle was sold. He filed the consumer complaint. He further states that the petitioner has a strong case on merit and his appeal should be decided after considering the merits. It is seen from the impugned order of the State Commission that none of the parties were present when this order was passed and all the points raised in the appeal has not been considered. However, the State Commission has upheld the order of the District Forum. Though it is legal to pass such an Order Rule 13 (2) (C) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 but it is to be seen whether all the points raised in the appeal has been covered. In the interest of justice, the matter is remanded back to the State Commission for passing appropriate orders after giving full opportunity to both the parties of being heard. As both the Fora below have passed a concurrent order and respondent has already won in both the Forums, his rights are adversely affected, the Order of the State Commission dated 04.04.2019 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the State Commission for deciding the appeal afresh and a cost of Rs.20,000/- is imposed upon the petitioner to be paid to the respondent/complainant to be deposited on or before the next date of hearing before the State Commission. The State Commission before starting hearing on this appeal shall release this amount to the respondent/complainant after his appearance. District Forum has also allowed the complaint on the ground that the petitioner did not has the right to repossess the said vehicle. Parties to appear before the State Commission on 09.01.2020. Accordingly, the revision petition No.1687 of 2019 stands disposed of. | 
