Heard learned counsel for the appellants.

2.      None appears on behalf of the respondents although summon against them is sufficient.

3.      This is an appeal filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to this appeal shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the District Forum.

4.    It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the complainant alleged that he has purchased a D.G.set being financed by OP No.1 and was delivered by OP No.3. Complainant alleged that he has paid the margin money of Rs.1,34,738/- and also Rs.27,975/- towards  documentation charges.

5.      Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that complainant alleged inter alia that after delivery of the D.G.set,  OP Nos. 1 and 2 declined to pay the rest of the financed amount to OP No.3 and as such OP No.3 threatened to take away the D.G.set. Alleging about deficiency in service, the complainant filed the complaint.

6.      OP Nos. 1, 2 and 3 were not served with notice and as such they were set ex parte.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned District Forum after hearing the complainant passed the following impugned order ex parte:-

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

            In the above observations and analysis, we are in considered opinion to allow the complaint case with directions to the OP No. 1 & 2 to restore the financing activities by paying the finance amount of Rs.5,20,000/- (Rupees five lakh twenty thousand) only to the OP No.3 and receive the regular EMIs from the complainant as per the agreement executed between the parties along with pay a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand) only towards harassment, mental agony and cost of the case to the complainant within one month from the date of receipt of this order.”

8.      Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that there is no cause of action arose at Jharsuguda  and for that the complaint before the learned District Forum, Jharsuguda was not maintainable.  He further submitted that the impugned order is cryptic and illegal for which it should be set aside.

9.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum lacks jurisdiction as none of the part of cause of action arose at Jharsuguda and as such the learned District Forum, Jharsuguda has no territorial jurisdiction. Besides, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the learned District Forum has erred in law by not considering the fact that the no point of cause of action arose  within Jharsuguda and thereby the learned District Forum, Jharsuguda has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. He further submitted that since OPs  have been set ex parte because of their non-appearance for the reason that the advocate concerned has neither appeared nor filed Vakalatnama  to defended the OP. So he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

10.    Learned counsel for the respondent appeared on V.C. in the later part of hearing but submitted for adjournment.  Since it is matter of 2014, it cannot be adjourned. However, he submitted that the impugned order of the learned District Forum should be confirmed and the appeal should be dismissed.

11.    Considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

12.    It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the D.G.set being financed by OP Nos. 1 and 2. It is not in dispute that there was agreement between the parties for payment of the total amount of the loan but the complainant only availed part of the loan and OPs 1 and 2 did not sanction further loan.

13.    The cause title of the  complaint shows that  OPs’ Branch Office is at Sambalpur, the head office is at Bombay and the dealer belongs to Sundargarh. It is only available from the complaint that the D.G.set was installed at Jharsuguda. The complaint clearly shows that OPs 1 and 2 are the appellants in this appeal. However, since  evidence has not been led by the OPs and  no opportunity was being given to the OPs,  the issue on the question of jurisdiction would be decided by the learned District Forum after taking evidence on record  provided  matter is disposed of afresh by the learned District Forum. Apart from this, there is also claim made by the respondent to show that due to non-feasibility of the complainant to receive further loan the Fiancée Company – OP has not released the rest of the loan. The OPs should lead evidence in this regard.

14.    Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that they had instructed their lawyer to appear but the lawyer concerned did not take step for which they have been set ex parte. The order sheet shows that the concerned lawyer did not extend appearance for which the OPs were set ex parte. It is settled law that for the latches of the lawyer the party should not be allowed to suffer.

15.    In view of aforesaid discussion, this Commission is of the view that it is a fit case where the matter should be remanded to the learned District Forum for fresh disposal after giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties of being heard. Since this is a matter of 2013 after some years the complainant should be compensated while remanding the case.

16.    Hence, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded to the learned District Forum subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- by the OPs 1 and 2 to the complainant before the learned District Forum. It is made clear that learned District Forum would not be impressed by any observation made in this case and do decide the case on the materials available on record. The learned District Forum is further directed that it would give opportunity to file written version and to adduce evidence and at the same time, it would also given opportunity to the complainant to adduce evidence if any and decide the case within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order. Both the parties are directed to appear before the learned District Forum on 2.2.2021 to receive further instruction from it.

Appeal is disposed of accordingly. No cost.

  DFR be sent back forthwith.

The statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellants with interest accrued thereon if any on proper identification.

Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties.