Learned counsel for appellant is present.

2.      None appears on behalf of respondent on call.

3.      Assailing the order dated 23.9.2013 passed by learned District Commisison, Jagatsinghpur in C. C. Case no. 87 of 2013 the present appellant who was O.P. before the District Forum filed the appeal. Hereinafter the parties are referred as arrayed before the District Commission.

4.      Case of complainant before learned District Forum was that on 25.7.2006 he had purchased one TATA Turbo vehicle which was financed by O.P for Rs.4,48,120/- and the agreement value was Rs.5,80,800/- to be liquidated in 44 Equal Monthly Installment (EMI) @ Rs.13,200/- per month. Complainant had paid an amount of Rs.60,000/- as down payment and availed a rebate of Rs.20,000/-. On 15.3.2009 the said vehicle was seized by O.P. On such seizure complainant filed one complaint case no. 44 of 2009 against O.P. which resulted in compromise with O.P. In the mean time complainant had paid Rs.6,21,782/- to O.P. towards liquidation of loan which is excess of Rs.39,942/- to the agreement value. Complainant approached O.P. several times for issuance of No Objection Certificate (NOC). O.P. did not issue NOC rather demanded Rs.1,20,676.36p vide letter dated 15.11.2012. Alleging deficiency of service complainant prayed for issuance of NOC in favour of him.

5.      O.P. neither appeared nor filed any written version and hence was set ex parte.

6.      On the date of hearing learned counsel for complainant was absent. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on perusal of materials available on record learned District Commission directed O.P. to issue NOC in favour of complainant in respect of the loan-cum-hypothecation agreement no. 10864723.

7.      Heard learned counsel for appellant/O.P.

8.      Learned counsel for appellant submitted that on 6.8.2013 advocate for O.P. appeared and thereafter filed written version which was not accepted by the Forum below. It was further submitted that O.P. had not received free copy of the impugned order/final order rather on intimation by complainant, obtained a certified copy of the final order on 6.2.2014. It was also submitted that there was an outstanding due against the complainant to be paid by him. The direction of issuance of NOC is illegal and as such liable to be set aside.

9.      On bare perusal of District Forum record it has come to light that on the date of hearing learned counsel for complainant was absent. Further it is found that notice was served on O.P. but AD did not return. Notice against O.P. was held sufficient as more than 30 days had elapsed. This shows that the case was decided without hearing the parties. Further it is also seen that ample opportunity was not given to O.P. to place their stand.

10.    Taking into consideration of facts and circumstances of the case we are inclined to remand the matter by allowing the appeal for better appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case. Hence we remand the matter to learned Commission below for de novo hearing. Parties are directed to appear on 19.10.2020 by filing the certified copy of this order before the District Commission for taking further action at their end.

11.    Appeal is allowed accordingly. No cost.  

         Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties.

         DFR be sent back forthwith.