Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

2.                None appears for the respondent.

3.              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.

4.               The  case of the complainant, in nutshell  is that the complainant  being driver for self-employment purchased a vehicle  bearing No.OR-19-B-8555 after obtaining loan from the OP. It is alleged that an agreement was executed to the effect that  the OP  was  to recover Rs.8,26,727/- from the complainant in 35 installments within the period from 01.03.2005 to 01.01.2008.  The complainant alleged that he has spent Rs.2,00,000/- for body building and other necessary money towards registration fees, accessories, initial money, insurance charges  and registration fee. While matter stood thus, on 17.01.2006 the complainant’s vehicle was seized by the OP without any prior notice to the complainant. It is alleged that the complainant has requested for release of the vehicle  but it was not heard. So, the complaint was filed.

5.            The OP filed the written version stating that since the complainant has been  intentionally avoiding in payment of EMI, the vehicle was seized and sold in auction on 19.01.2006. As per the agreement, the vehicle has been repossessed and sold. There is no any deficiency in service committed by the OP.

6.                    After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum passed the following order:-

              xxxxxxx           xxxxxxxx          xxxxxxxx

            “The learned counsel for the O.P. has not challenged the quantum of initial money, insurance charges, registration fees, taxes, cost of accessories, body building, cost of iron pipes etc. as claimed by the complainant and hence, we direct the Ops to reimburse the above amount to the complainant within a span of 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. In addition to this, the Ops will also pay a compensation of Rs.10,000/-  to complainant for the mental harassment  and with this  the case is disposed off. No costs.”

7.              Learned  counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the written version with proper perspectives.  According to him  the complainant admitted to have defaulted in payment of EMI  and such fact has not been considered by the learned District Forum. It is further submitted that learned District Forum has not applied judicial mind to the fact that as per agreement the vehicle has been repossessed and sold in auction to recover the rest of loan amount. As the impugned order lacks brevity, same should be set-aside by allowing the appeal.

8.                 Considered the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant , perused the DFR and impugned order. Onus lies on complainant to prove the deficiency in service on the part of OP.

9.                It is admitted fact that the complainant has incurred loan of Rs.8,26,727/- from  the OP with a condition to repay same in 35 EMIs. It is not in dispute that on 19.01.2006 the complainant’s vehicle while plying with iron pipes, the OP repossessed same.

10.         Complainant has alleged that the vehicle was repossessed without prior notice. It is well settled in law that  the vehicle purchased on loan  can be seized without notice  if the agreement between the parties spell out same.  In the instant case no agreement is filed by the OP to justify their action. Therefore, the seizure of the vehicle  of the vehicle without notice is illegal and improper. Same fact is  also  dealt by the learned District Forum.

11.        Besides that the plea has been taken that learned  District Forum  has no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint because at the relevant time, the branch  office of OP No.1 was not established at Cuttack but the cause of action as it appears from the pleadings occurred  within the jurisdiction of Cuttack. Although this plea was not considered by the learned District Forum,Cuttack in their impugned order but  same is considered now in the appeal which is confirmation of original proceeding.

12.           In view of the above, this Commission do not find any wrong to interfere with the impugned order, hence the impugned order is confirmed but there is anomaly in the operative part of the impugned order as to how much amount is to be  paid towards different counts as available in para-11 of the said order. Although  the para-3 of the impugned order has contained the necessary quantum of money spent by the complainant but the consolidated  amount would be convenient payable by the OP. Therefore, considering  all such aspect, this Commission while affirming the order hereby modified the impugned order by directing OP to pay Rs.2,00,000/-  within 45 days to the complainant, failing which it will carry @ 12 % interest from the date of impugned order till date of payment. Rest of the impugned order remained unaltered.

                 The appeal is dismissed. No cost.

                 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 if  copy of order received from this Commission.

                  DFR be sent back forthwith.