Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.

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’s father namely  Hrusikesh Rout had purchased a Bolero SLX  vehicle for Rs.7,51,163/- from OP No.5 by incurring loan from OP No.1 & 2. Complainant alleged  that since OP No.5 without any reason repossessed the vehicle on 29.09.2014 and thereby given cause of action to  file the complaint. Hence, the complaint.

4.           The OP No.1 & 2   are set-exparte.

5.            OP No.3 & 4 filed written version stating that there is no allegation against them and they have been made party for no cause of action. Therefore, they prayed to dismiss the complaint against them.

6.                OP No.5 filed written version stating that the complaint is not maintainable against them.  OP No.5  has not received the full amount of Rs.7,51,163/- except payment of Rs.4,07,525/-  by late Hrushikesh Rout. They stated that OP has not forced  the complainant to  surrender the vehicle but the complainant himself surrendered  the vehicle.

7.          Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that   learned District Forum have passed the order on majority against them directing to pay Rs.4,33,200/-  with interest to OP No.5 for   discharge of the loan amount of the complainant.

8.               Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that they have engaged the lawyer but did not participate  in the hearing of the case, for which they were  set-aside. He has good case to win  because there is no relationship between the OP No.1 & 2 and there is contract between them on privities   basis. Without understanding all these factual and legal  aspects learned District Forum has passed the impugned order. In the above circumstances, the matter should be remanded to the learned District Commission  for  hearing  on merit  after giving  both parties reasonable opportunity of being heard.

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

10.               No doubt OP No.1 & 2 have been set-ex-parte. It is appears from DFR that learned District Forum  passed order directing all the OP to pay Rs.3,77,500/- whereas the majority members directed  OP No.1 & 2  to pay Rs.4,33,200/- alongwith  other costs  to OP No.5 to adjust loan against complainant.   Whether there is relationship between  OP No.1 & 2 and 5 and what kind of relationship should be decided by the learned District Forum  under the Act. Moreover, opportunity should be given to OP No.1 & 2 to place the material before the learned District Commission  because of  the communication gap between the lawyer and  the Ops, they are set ex-parte. Any latches of lawyer should  not stands  on the  way to award even justice  to the litigant.

11.              In view of above, we hereby  allow the appeal by remanding the matter to the learned District Commission  subject to payment of cost of  Rs.40,000/- by the OP No.1 & 2 to the complainant within 15 days. After  deposit of the cost learned District Commission would allow the Op No.1 & 2 to file written version and learned District Commission would dispose of the case within sixty days from the date of receipt of this order. Learned counsel for the appellant is directed to file copy of the order before the learned District Commission on 28.06.2022 and take further instruction.

                   Appeal is disposed of accordingly.

                   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.