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

2.              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.

3.                   The case     of the complainant, in nutshell  is that  complainant   purchased a Tipper  on availing finance for Rs.7,00,000/- from the OP in 2003. It is alleged  inter-alia that he has already paid Rs.7,97,450/- by January,2006  and the balance amount to be paid within 11.07.2006. But the complainant  received  a demand notice on 28.02.2006  to pay  an amount of Rs.1,00,661/-. It  is  further alleged that on 10.03.2006  the OP forcibly repossessed  the vehicle from the complainant.  The complainant made cash payment  in January,2006 but  there was no reason to seize the vehicle. Thereafter the complainant requested the OP to release the vehicle but they did not listen to it. After necessary request of the complainant   the OP turned a deaf ear  to his word. So, showing deficiency in service on the part of the OP, the complaint was filed.

4.            The  OP    filed written version stating that  as per agreement  the complainant has not filed the installment regularly. So, they have seized the vehicle.  Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

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

               Xxxx              xxxx              xxxx

(i) to pay Rs.78,000/- towards down payment alongwith interest at the rate of 10 % per annum from 11.08.2003 till date of payment,

(ii)to pay a consolidated amount of Rs.75,000/- towards tax,registration, insurance and fitness etc. for the said vehicle for three years,

(iii) to pay Rs.50,000/- towards mental agony, harassment, other financial loss alongwith cost of this case.

(iv) to pay the consolidated amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards hard earned installments amount paid towards the EMIs as against the finance of Rs.7,00,000/- under the ratio 7:1 as observed the financer’s share and owner’s share as to the vehicle

                                Or

    To pay the complainant the consolidated amount of Rs.4,00,000/- as observed ( for the vehicle on resale).

    The orders of Part-A or Part-B shall be carried by the Ops within one month from the date of receiving of this order failing which extra  interest of 3 % per annum shall be chargeable over and above the amounts from the date of this order till realization.

    Close the case accordingly on part merit of the complaint petition. “

6..                      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering the agreement in question. According to him the complainant has enjoyed  the vehicle for three years and still   he did not pay the entire loan amount for which the vehicle was  seized  and necessary notice was issued to the complainant. Learned District Forum ought to have considered all the facts and law involved in this case. So, he submitted to set-aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

7.                      Considered the submission  of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.       

8.                    It is admitted fact that the complainant has purchased the vehicle  being financed by  the OP.  It is also not in dispute that the complainant has already paid maximum installments and only there was outstanding of Rs.1.00,661/-  as on March,2006. Thereafter a notice has been issued stating that the entire outstanding  loan amount should be payable  within March,2006. But in the same month  of March,2006 another notice was issued by the OP  showing outstanding of Rs.2,00,000/- against the complainant. When  two notices were issued in a same month towards outstanding dues, we are of the opinion that the OP has not maintained the statement of account properly. We have called for the agreement to know  the terms and conditions of the agreement, but instead  learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the vehicle has been seized   inspite of payment of some installments. In absence of agreement and  in view of fact that  complainant has paid major amount  it must be held that the OP repossessed the vehicle illegally.  It is further observed  that the vehicle has been sold away. When repossession  is  illegal, sale of same is also illegal.   So, we confirmed the finding of the learned District Forum that the complainant has proved the deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

9.           So far compensation is concerned,  the vehicle has been plied  for three years by the complainant . The order  passed by the learned District forum at A or B is not correct as  it is not in accordance  with Section-14  of the Act. Such type  of order as written  in judiciary.  We deprecate the manner of order passed by the learned District  Forum. However, we  taking the terms and conditions and facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, hereby direct the OP to pay consolidated amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to the complainant as compensation  within a period of 45 days from today failing which it will carry 18 % interest  payable by the OP to the complainant.

                   In the result, the appeal stands 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 copy of order received from this Commission.  

                     DFR be sent back forthwith.