Petitioner/complainant purchased a  three-wheeler Vikram  No. HR-55A/7643 after raising a loan from the respondent.  The dispute between the parties is as to how much money had been advanced by the respondent  to  the petitioner for purchase of the said vehicle.  According to the petitioner, the respondent had advanced only a sum of Rs.65,000/.  According to the respondent, it had advanced a sum of Rs.1,13,000/-, the payment of which was to be made by paying Rs.4800/- p.m. for a period of 30 months.  Interest payable was @ 11%.  Petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs.39,550/- which was taken as security deposit by the respondent and issued a FDR.  Petitioner repaid the amount of Rs.86,400/-.  As the rest installments were not being paid, the respondent seized the vehicle. 

Being aggrieved with this, petitioner filed a complaint before District Forum alleging therein that the respondent was illegally calculated interest at  Rs.1,13,000/- whereas the amount of loan advanced was only Rs.65,000/- which was to be returned by paying EMIs of Rs.4800/- for 18 months.  Before the District Forum, respondent did not appear and was proceeded ex-parte.  District Forum disposed of the complaint in the following terms :-

“There is no counter version of the respondent No.2 with us and respondent No.2 is also stated to have snatched the financed vehicle which is held as illegal as per latest legal position that a financer cannot snatch such vehicles but can enforce the agreement of hire purchase through Civil Court.  So, the respondent No.2 is directed to return the vehicle in question immediately to the complainant as also provide details of accounts explaining the variance of sale price/hire purchase price between Rs.88,000/- as mentioned in the invoice and as per writing given by the respondent No.2 to the complainant on 12.3.2004 in which Rs.1,15,000/- has been mentioned.  Thus, respondent No.2 will satisfy the complainant will be responsible for the payment of balance dues, if any.  Compliance be made within one month after the receipt of the copy of this order.  No cost. File be consigned to the record room.”

          This order has attained finality.  Petitioner, thereafter filed an execution application before the District Forum.  District Forum disposed of the said application by passing the following order :

“We have already gone through the calculations placed by both the sides on record.  On the basis of calculations of both the sides it was ordered on 16.1.2007 that the complainant is liable to pay Rs.79,508/- to opposite party No.2 along with future interest as per the agreement  and judgment dated 16.9.2005, but the complainant still disputed the calculations.  We see no cogent reason for the same.  We, therefore, again order that the complainant is liable to pay Rs.79,508/- to the opposite party No.2.  Come up for the payment of the same on 22.5.2007.”

          As per this order, petitioner was made liable to pay Rs.79,508/- to the financer by way of interim order.  The District Forum then fixed the case for further hearing on 22.5.2007.

          Being aggrieved, petitioner filed an appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission disposed of the appeal by observing as under :

“We have gone through the interim order passed  by the  District Forum, Gurgaon and no infirmity in the interim order has been noticed by us.  This revision petition is dismissed.”

          The District Forum had finally determined the liability of the petitioner and directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.79,508/-. Perhaps it adjourned the case to 22.5.2007 for compliance but the same is not indicated in the order.  The State Commission, taking the order passed by the District Forum as interim order, dismissed the appeal.  We are not happy in the way the District Forum has finally determined the amount paid by the respondent simply by observing that we have gone through the calculations placed by the parties on record and determine that the complainant is liable to pay Rs.79,508/- to opposite party No.2.  The District Forum should apply its mind and arrive at the conclusion as to how much amount is payable by either of the parties.

For the reasons stated above, we set aside the order of State Commission and as well as that of District Forum and  direct the District Forum to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law.  Parties are directed to appear before the District Forum on 19.5.2010.

            Since it is an old case, we direct the District Forum to dispose of execution application pending before it within four months from the first date of hearing.