Heard learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondent.

2.      This 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.   Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the complainant has purchased a tractor bearing Registration No. OD-03-E-1214 for his agriculture purpose by obtaining financial assistance of Rs.4,89,352/- from the OPs payable on 45 monthly instalments starting from 1.9.2015 to 1.5.2019. The complainant alleged inter alia that he had paid some instalments but due to mother’s illness, he could not pay some instalments but OPs without following the procedure have repossessed the tractor on 23.12.2016. As due process of repossession was not followed, the complainant filed the complaint.

4.      Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the OPs filed written version stating that they have extended loan to the complainant and also complainant admittedly became a defaulter for which they repossessed the tractor in accordance with agreement between the parties. They have no any deficiency of service on their part.

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

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

            The OPs are directed deliver possession of the tractor bearing Regd.No.OD-03-E-1214 to the complainant immediately after receiving this order. The OPs are further directed not to claim loan installments from the date of repossession i.e. from 23.12.2016 to the date of delivery of possession of the tractor to the complainant. Further the OPs are directed to pay Rs.1000/- (One thousand) to the complainant towards cost within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which it shall carry interest @10% P.A.till payment.’’

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by not going through the written version properly. Learned District Forum should have gone through the agreement properly and then given the finding that the OP has not served any notice. He submitted that when complainant has admitted to have not paid the instalments due to health problem, the learned District Forum must take the view in favour of the OPs that the complainant is a defaulter. Since the District Forum has not taken all the materials into consideration the impugned order is assailable and hence, the appeal should be allowed by setting aside the impugned order.

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

8.      It is admitted fact that the complainant has incurred loan from the OPs to purchase the tractor. It is not in dispute that the complainant has made agreement with the OPs. It is also not in dispute that the vehicle has been repossessed by the OPs without serving any notice. The necessary agreement is the real key factor to be perused to find out the breach of agreement by the complainant with the OPs. On perusal of the agreement, it appears at Clause – 11 that seven days notice is required to the defaulter before repossession of the vehicle. In the instant case, such notice was not given. Also it is well settled in law that the repossession of vehicle can be  made without any notice but that must be embodied in the agreement. Since in the instant case repossession is made violating the agreement without any notice, it is breach of contract by the OPs. It is well settled in law that where there is repossession without any notice, such repossession is illegal. Learned District Forum has rightly judged the case and considered the facts and law. There is nothing to interfere with the finding. At this juncture,  learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the operative portion of the impugned order is silent whether the complainant  continued to pay the EMIs or not in view of the order passed by the learned District Forum. Learned District Forum has passed the order to deliver possession of the tractor to the complainant and not to claim instalment for that repossession period. Beyond that it has nothing mentioned. Once the vehicle is restored,  there is no bar for the complainant to continue the EMI payable if the period of agreement is still available. But it appears that the agreement has been expired in the meantime. Therefore, both parties should go for fresh agreement and fresh instalment payable by rescheduling the loan amount pending. But it must be made clear that either the principal or interest for the repossession period  should not be claimed while rescheduling the payment schedule.

9.      The appeal is dismissed with the above observation. Impugned order is affirmed.

            DFR be sent back forthwith.

          Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties.