Order no.  5  dt.  18/07/2014

           Heard ld. lawyer of the complainant and perused the materials on record. It is observed from the record that when the complainant was a defaulter in respect of payment of various EMIs during that period the o.p. repossessed the vehicle in question. Although the complainant paid certain amount day before the repossession of the said vehicle he did not pay the actual due amount. Moreover, complainant did not file any scrap of paper which supports that complainant paid the EMIs regularly. So we find no deficiency in service on behalf of o.p. Hence, the case is rejected.