This appeal and the application for condonation of delay are being decided together in as much as though the appeal is filed after delay of 101 days yet without any specific order on delay condonation application, the appeal was admitted. 2. The appeal arises out of the judgement and order rendered by the Delhi State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in complaint case no. C-242/96. The State Commission allowed the complaint filed by the respondent and directed the appellant to refund proportionate depreciated amount @5% per year as contributed by the respondent being price of the vehicle and lump sum compensation of Rs.15,000/- including cost. 3. It is an admitted fact that the appellant financed amount of Rs.4,85,351/- to the respondent for the purchase of a Tata truck vehicle. The loan amount was to be paid in 35 monthly instalments. There is no dispute about the fact that the respondent was irregular in making payments. The vehicle was repossessed by the appellant on 25.5.93 due to the defaults committed by the respondent. The respondent, however, submitted an undertaking that he would be regular in making payments of further instalments. The truck vehicle was released in his favour on 16.06.93 on the basis of such assurance and on his making of certain payments. The respondent continued to pay certain instalments further yet was found in arrears. The appellant, therefore, again repossessed the truck vehicle on 21.11.1993. The vehicle was subsequently sold away by the appellant in public auction for Rs.1,90,000/-. 4. The respondent (complainant) approached the State Commission by filing the complaint alleging that the amount of Rs.2,38,177/- paid by him towards the instalments was not refunded by the appellant. He further alleged that the finance was made available to him only for purchasing of the chassis of the truck and that he incurred expenditure of Rs.3,00,000/- for body building, electrification and painting work. He averred that he lost business and suffered mental agony due to the repossession of the truck vehicle by the appellant without giving him due notice for such purpose. He, therefore, claimed the refund of the amount paid by him alongwith interest @24% p.a., the amount of expenditure incurred by him for body building and other work and compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- towards loss of business, inconvenience and mental agony. 5. The appellant did not participate in the proceedings by filing written reply. The case of the appellant, as is projected through the appeal memo, is that the respondent was not a consumer qua the appellant. The contractual relationship between parties was ignored by the State Commission. For, the ownership rights of the vehicle remained with the appellant and, therefore, the appellant was entitled to repossess the vehicle in accordance with the terms of the agreement. The impugned judgement and order does not show application of judicial mind because vague directions are given. The hire-purchase agreement dated 31.08.1992 is not properly construed by the State Commission and, therefore, the reliefs granted by the State Commission are improper, vague and unsustainable. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 7. There is delay of 101 days in filing the appeal. The appellant has moved application for condonation of delay. It is true that by order dated 09.11.2006, the appeal came to be admitted. Still, however, there is no specific order regarding condonation of the delay. In fact, in the order dated 09.11.2006 there is no reference to the delay condonation application. On behalf of the appellant, learned counsel submits that when the appeal is admitted, it may be presumed that the delay was condoned. We do not find any merit in such contention. There cannot be presumption of condonation of delay in as much as it is the matter to be considered in the light of section 24(A) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is obvious that judicial finding is required to be recorded on the delay condonation application before the appeal can be considered on merits. 8. Now, it may be gathered from the recitals of the application dated 17.10.2006 that the representation of the Marketing Department of the appellant expressed doubts about correctness of the facts stated in the impugned judgement and order and, therefore, a copy of the judgement was referred to the Marketing Department. It was forwarded to the Marketing Department on 12.07.2006. The Marketing Department then forwarded the copy to the Legal Department of the appellant on 20.07.2006. The General Manager (Law) was on leave and, therefore, there was delay in processing of the matter. The judgement was forwarded to the counsel at New Delhi on 12.08.2006 for his comments and, thereafter decision was taken to file the appeal. The instructions were given to the counsel on 04.09.2006. The appellant appeal came to be filed on 17.10.2006. 9. The movements of the concerned file from one department to another department of the appellant cannot be regarded as sufficient cause for the delay. The copy of the impugned order and judgement was issued on 4.07.2006. Obviously, the appeal should have been filed within 30 days, i.e., prior to 04.08.2006. The delay between 4.07.2006 till 17.10.2006 is not properly explained. The General Manager was required to give opinion but it is alleged that he was on leave between 21st to 26th July 2006. It may be gathered that after 26.07.2006 he could have given his comments and immediately action could have been taken to file the appeal. There was absolutely no need to again call for opinion of the learned counsel at New Delhi and to commit delay in giving instructions to file the appeal. The averments made in the application show that the instructions were given to the counsel at New Delhi on 4.09.2006. Therefore, from 04.09.2006 till 17.10.2006 there could not be any sufficient explanation regarding the delay caused in drafting of the appeal. 10. In andimalla Raghavaiah & Company Vs. National Insurance Company Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr.[(2009) 7 SCC 768], the Supreme Court held that it is the expressed duty of consumer fora to dismiss the complaints, which are barred by limitation and where no sufficient cause has been shown. The Supreme Court held that when the cause of action arose on 23.03.88, the complaint regarding deficiency in service ought to have been filed within two years and mere non-issuance of the claim forms by the insurance company could not be the sufficient cause to condone the delay. The explanation given in the present application appears to be inadequate, insufficient and unreasonable. We are of the opinion, therefore, that the delay cannot be condoned and appeal will have to be dislodged on this ground. 11. We shall, however, proceed to consider merits of the appeal since it is pending for long time, on assumption that the delay can be condoned, in order to curtail further span of litigation. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the State Commission did not address the issue of the terms of the agreement of hire-purchase. A copy of the proposal for hire-purchase scheme (Annexure P-1) is placed on record. It is true that the respondent was required to pay 35 instalments as per schedule of the payment as shown in the agreement. The hire-purchase agreement further shows that the appellant was entitled to terminate the agreement. The copies of the applications submitted by the respondent show that he is an illiterate person. The appellant has placed on record copy of the registered letter dated 09.07.1994 addressed to the respondent (Annexure P-7). However, there is nothing on record to show that the said letter was duly served on the respondent. The appellant seeks to rely on conditions enumerated in the hire-purchase agreement. The appellant particularly refer to condition no. 7(b) of the terms and conditions of the agreement executed by the respondent. The relevant condition shows that the owner was entitled to terminate the agreement and recover the possession of the vehicle if the hirer would commit breach of the conditions and obligations stipulated in the agreement. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant relying on condition 7(b) vehemently argued that the action taken by the appellant was legal and proper. He invited our attention to certain observations in adma Wati Vs. Tata Finance Limited & Anr.[II (2005) CPJ 31], arameshwari Vs. V.S.T. Service Station & Ors.[II (2010) CPJ 45 (NC)] and urendra Kumar Agarwal Vs. TELCO Finance Limited & Anr.[II (2010) CPJ 163 (NC)]. The consistent view taken by the State Commission and this Commission is that rights of the parties are governed strictly by the terms of the hire-purchase agreement. It is the case of the Surendra Kumar Agarwal (supra) that when the finance company had not repossessed the vehicle forcibly, no relief could be granted to the complainant. It is pertinent to note that the appellant did not place on record any material to draw an inference that the respondent was served with any notice before obtaining the possession of the truck vehicle on 21.11.1993. In fact, the issuance of the letter dated 09.07.1994 is not duly proved. One cannot be oblivious of the fact that the respondent was given finance for purchase only the chassis. He had incurred huge expenditure for the work of body-building, painting, etc. The taking back of the vehicle could have financially disabled him to repay the amounts of instalments. If the vehicle alongwith the body and other parts was the subject of finance and was repossessed with due notice to the respondent then the matter could be viewed from different angle. Here is the case of excess committed by the appellant. 13. In /s. Magma Fincop Limited Vs. Pandit Ishwar Dev Thakur[2010 CTJ 913 (CP) (NCDRC)], this Commission held that where the vehicle was not repossessed in legal manner, the relief could be granted to the consumer. Similarly in case of nstalment Supply Ltd. Vs. Kangra Ex-serviceman Transport Co. & Anr.[2007 CTJ 404 (CP) (NCDRC)], it is held that if the vehicle was not seized in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement, the consumer fora can decide the dispute. Similarly, in agma Fincorp Limited Vs. Sh. Ashok Kumar Gupta[Revision Petition No. 2158 / 2009 decided on 19.07.2010], it is held that the vehicle could not be repossessed without compliance of full legal requirement. This Commission in the case of iticorp Maruti Finance Ltd. Vs. S. Vijayalaxmi [III (2007) CPJ 161 (NC)] after having dealt with the entire gamut of Hire Purchase Agreements normally entered into by the financing agencies with the consumers has in categorical terms held that the banks / financing agencies should resort to procedure recognized by law to take possession of vehicles in cases where the borrower may have committed default in payment of the instalments instead of taking resort to strong arm tactics. 14. We have noticed that as on 21.11.1996 overdue amount was Rs.41,873/-. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount recoverable was much more and, therefore, repossession of the vehicle was justified. The vehicle was sold for Rs.1,90,000/- and the amount was adjusted. The respondent was not served with the auction notice. The entries in the relevant extract of auction (Annexure P-3) vaguely show that such notice for auction of the vehicle was sent to the respondent. However, there is nothing on record to show that such notice was issued and served on respondent. It appears that the respondent paid various instalments to the appellant. The appellant did not deduct the cost of the body-building and other works. Under these circumstances, the repossession of the vehicle was high handed act of the appellant. 15. True, the directions given by the State Commission are rather vague and require modifications. However, otherwise, there is no merit in the present appeal. Taking over all view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the delay caused in filing the appeal cannot be condoned and the appeal must fail. We, therefore, dismiss the delay condonation application and the appeal with clarification that the appellant is liable to refund the amount of instalments recovered from the respondent by deducting 10% of the amount per year being the depreciation value of the truck vehicle and to further pay lump sum compensation of Rs.15,000/- as awarded by the State Commission. The delay condonation application and the appeal are accordingly disposed off. No costs. 16. The statutory amount deposited alongwith accrued interest thereon, if any, be adjusted towards the payment to be made to the respondent and be released in his favour towards part of the execution of the order of the State Commission.