Learned counsel for the appellant is absent.

          Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is present.

2.      It is seen from the record that learned counsel for the appellant is not appearing consistently and no step is taken today.

3.      Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submits for dismissal of the appeal.

4.      Learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that the complainant has taken loan from the OPs to purchase Mahindra Alfa Auto bearing Registration No. OR-11G-4607. It was agreed between the parties that he would pay the loan in 35 monthly  instalments but the complaint did not pay the same for which the vehicle was repossessed by the OPs. It is alleged inter alia by the complainant that the vehicle was taken by forcibly for  which there is deficiency of service on the part of the OPs. Alleging deficiency of service on the part of the OPs, complainant filed the complaint.

5.      Learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that the OPs filed written version stating that the complainant is a habitual defaulter and they have served notice prior to repossession of the vehicle. When the amount was not paid back, the vehicle was repossessed. So, there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs.

6.      Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that learned District Forum rightly  passed the impugned order on proper appreciation of the fact and law but the appellant has filed the appeal stating that the impugned order itself is  illegal as he paid 15 EMIs and the vehicle was repossessed without any prior notice.

7.      Learned counsel for the  respondent submitted that the appellant has also taken plea that the appellant is ready to pay the outstanding dues but the learned District Forum has not appreciated the pleading of the complainant. So he allegedly filed the appeal to set aside the impugned order.

8.      When the appellant is absent the matter should have been dismissed for default but on the materials available on record, this Commission dispose of the matter on merit.

9.      Considered the submissions of learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

10.    On going through the impugned order, it is found I that the learned District Forum has already observed that notice prior to repossession of the vehicle was issued by  the respondents - OPs. Also from the pleadings learned District Forum has also taken view that there is no deficiency of service on the part of the OPs and this Commission satisfied that the District Forum has recorded correct finding and there is nothing to disagree with the same. The impugned order is confirmed.

The appeal stands dismissed on merit. No cost.

DFR be sent back forthwith.

          Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties.