Heard learned counsel for the appellant on V.C. None appears for the respondent.

2.      Here 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.

3.   The case of the complainant in brief is that the complainant has purchased a Truck bearing Registration No.OD-19-4826 being financed by OP No.1 for Rs.8,00,000/-  out of which he paid Rs. 5,50,000/-. Complainant alleged inter alia that he had to pay the instalments but OP No.1 did not give any agreement to be executed by both the parties. When the vehicle was taken for verification by OP No.2, it was found that the chassis number of the vehicle has got tampered. So alleging about deficiency of service on the part of OP No.1, the complaint was filed.

4.      OP Nos. 1 and 2 appeared but did not file written version. So the matter was heard ex parte but disposed of on merit.

 5.     Learned District Forum after hearing both sides passed the following impugned order:-

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

The complaint petition is allowed on exparte against the OP No.1 and dismissed as against OP No.2. The OP No.1 is directed to refund a sum of Rs.6,17,994/- towards margin money, documentation charge, insurance charges, processing fees and service tax charges with interest @9% per annum from the date of receipt till it is actually refunded to the complainant. The OP No.1 is further directed to refund a sum of Rs.49,500/- which the OP No.1 has received towards the cost of two monthly installment and a sum of Rs.1450/- which has been deposited by the complainant towards fitness fees. The OP No.1 is directed to pay a sum of Rs.30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand) for practicing unfair trade practice and for deficiency in service and harassment caused to the petitioner and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards cost of litigation. The compliance of the directions shall be made within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error by not following the procedure of law.  He admitted to have received summon and engaged advocate but due to inaction on the part of the concerned advocate they have been set ex parte. Further, he submitted that the complaint is not maintainable and if an opportunity is given to place the written version and evidence, they would place the case on merit.

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

8.      Since the matter has been heard ex parte but as it appears due to absence of lawyer, OP No.1 was set ex parte whereas the settled law is that the party should not be allowed to suffer due to latches of the lawyer, so this Commission is inclined to set aside the impugned order by remanding the matter for denovo hearing.

9.      In view of above discussion, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed by remanding matter for denovo hearing subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- by OP No.1/appellant to the complainant who has suffered for protracting the hearing of the case. The necessary payment be made before the learned District Forum after which the learned District Forum would allow OP No.1 to file written version and both parties to give opportunity of adducing evidence if any and thereafter the learned District Forum would dispose of the matter basing on the materials on record within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. Free copy be supplied to both the parties who would appear before the learned District Forum on 22.6.2021 to take further instruction from it. No cost.

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

        DFR be sent back forthwith.