Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 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 nutshell is that  complainant for earning is livelihood on self-employment has availed loan of Rs. 21,50,000/- from the OPs to purchase a Tata LPT  truck  on execution of agreement between the parties. It is agreed between the parties that the loan would be repaid in 60 instalments commencing from 7.11.2015 to 7.8.2020. It is alleged inter alia by the complainant that the OPs forcibly repossessed the vehicle on 26.7.2019. It is not out of place to mention that the OPs issued letter on 8.7.2019  demanding outstanding of Rs.2,61,516/- but the complainant has paid Rs.1,35,000/- on 8.1.2019 towards loan isntalment and got the vehicle released as it was repossessed at that time. When the vehicle was plying, again notice was issued on 8.7.2019 demanding the aforesaid amount. But without prior notice the vehicle was repossessed on 26.7.2019. Since  the repossession of the vehicle without notice has contravened the agreement and due process of law, the complaint was filed by the complainant.

4.      OPs filed written version stating that the vehicle has been financed by them and the complainant has not paid the amount as demanded on 8.7.2019 for which they have repossessed the vehicle on 26.7.2019 in accordance with the agreement. Since repossession of vehicle is legal and proper the complainant has no case. Therefore, he prayed to dismiss the complaint.

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

                    “xxx   xxx   xxx

Thus, taking in to consideration that there is glaring deficiency in service on the part of the OP – Finance Company. Thus, this is a fit case where we are compelled to issue directions under Section – 14 of the Consumer Protection Act to deliver the said vehicle bearing Regd. No.OD-14F-3384 in question to the complainant after receipt of Rs.2,61,516/- (Rupees three lakhs eighty thousand) only as per letter dtd. 08.07.2019 issued by the OP – Indusind Bank  Ltd from the complainant immediately. After release of the said vehicle, the OP – Finance  Bank is also directed  not to seizes the said vehicle further during the contract period, if the complainant would regularly repay the installments and that too, without intervention of the appropriate court.

Accordingly, the CC Case is disposed of.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the  learned District Forum has passed the impugned order not in consonance with the prayer made in the complaint petition. According to him the complainant in the complaint only prayed not to repossess the vehicle and to supply the documents and further prayed to waive out the OD charges as same has been claimed by adopting unfair trade practice. On the other hand, learned District Forum has passed the aforesaid impugned order. He submitted that there is no prayer for release of the vehicle. Therefore, he submitted that the impugned order is illegal and improper. Further, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that  the complaint petition has not been amended although the repossession occurred  subsequent to filing of the complaint petition.  Learned counsel for the appellants drew our attention to Regulation – 17 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 by stating that the interim order has no force after 45 days unless it is continued from time to time. As the interim order was not extended  from the date of seizure of the vehicle, after the interim order the complainant has not paid any dues, as such, he submitted that the seizure is not illegal but the learned District Forum without understanding the fact an law involved in this case passed the impugned order which should be set aside by allowing the appeal.

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

8.      It is well settled in law that the complainant has to prove his case regarding the deficiency in service and unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs. It is admitted fact that the complainant has incurred loan from the OPs to purchase a truck and agreement was executed between the parties. It is also not in dispute that both the parties agreed for repayment of the loan amount in 60 instalment  and on 8.1.2019, complainant  paid Rs.1,35,000/- and got release of the vehicle on 11.1.2019. Now the main issue whether subsequent repossession is illegal or improper. The complaint petition does not disclose about any fresh cause of action as to occurrence dated 8.1.2019 but the learned District Forum has passed  the impugned order with respect  to the occurrence dated 8.1.2019. Complainant has filed the RC Book of the vehicle and necessary permit. At the same time, the complainant has also filed the statement of account where it is found that as on 8.1.2019 there was outstanding of Rs.10,28,867/-. Thus, it is found from the complaint petition along with documents that there are outstanding amount payable by the complainant to the OPs.

9.      During course of hearing of the appeal, copy of the agreement between the parties was filed. In that agreement at clause 15.5, it is clearly mentioned that the borrower has authorized the OPs to take possession of the vehicle in case of non-payment of the outstanding amount. The OPs have filed the letter dated
8.7.2019 vide Annexure – I where it is mentioned that there was outstanding of Rs.2,61,516/- as on that date. In that letter it is also mentioned that if this amount was not paid, OP would repossess the vehicle. Clause 15.3 also states that the vehicle can be repossessed without any notice. Therefore, the complainant has not proved that in default of payment of loan amount as on 8.1.2019 or 8.7.2019 the repossession of the vehicle would be illegal. On the other hand, complainant has not proved that the repossession is illegal in view of the agreement between the parties. It must be remembered that under the Contract Act, the agreement between the parties is binding on both the parties. The notice dated 8.7.2019 can be taken as notice for repossession. We have taken in view that the complaint petition has not contained any such amendment of second repossession. However, learned District Forum has not discussed all these materials in the impugned order.

10.    Be that as it may, when the order is passed, it is the duty of the learned District Forum to ask the complainant to amend the complaint. It is also revealed from the DFR that on 16.1.2019 there is an interim order passed not to repossess the vehicle but the order has got effect for 45 days as per Regulation – 17 issued under the Act. When the effect of the repossession is only for 45 days and the order sheet does not reflect for extension of it from time to time, therefore, the repossession of vehicle on 26.7.2019 cannot be said to be illegal and improper.

11.    In view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the complainant has failed to establish the deficiency in service or unfair trade practice adopted by the OPs. Learned District Forum without taking into consideration all the materials available on record has passed the impugned order which is liable to be set aside and it is set aside.

12.    The appeal stands allowed. No cost.

         DFR be sent back forthwith.

        Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.