Heard learned counsel for the appellant on V.C.None appears for the respondent.

2.      Here 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 appellant submitted that the complainant allegedly purchased a Bus by incurring loan of Rs.4,35,000/- from the OP Bank with the condition to repay the same with 35 instalments. The complainant alleged inter alia that he has paid some instalments but the OP without any prior notice repossessed the vehicle. Complainant alleged that he did not deposit last part of the instalments due to heavy loss in the business. Complainant alleged that the OP without considering his personal ground repossessed the vehicle on 17.8.2000. It is also alleged by the complainant that such repossession of vehicle is without application of due process of law. It is alleged by the complainant that the vehicle has been repossessed by violating section 20 of the Hire Purchase Act, 1972. Such repossession being illegal, improper and deficiency of service, the complaint was filed by the complainant.

4.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the OP filed written version refuting all the allegations expect the fact that the complainant has purchased the vehicle by incurring loan from the OP with the promise to repay the same with 35 instalments. It is further averred by the OP that Hire Purchase Act is not applicable in this case but there was agreement only executed between the parties to pay of the loan. The OP has also taken the plea that there is arbitration clause in the agreement and such clause is not invoked by the complainant and mischievously filed the complaint which is not proper ground. It is also stated in the written version that the OP has taken all steps by asking the complainant to pay the loan but the complainant  did not obey same for which the vehicle was repossessed. There is no any deficiency of service on the part of the OP.

5.      Learned District Forum after hearing both sides passed the following impugned order:-

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

In the result, we direct the OP i.e. Indusind Bank Limited, Door No. 78, IInd Floor, Janpath, Kharvelnagar, Unit – III, Bhubaneswar to pay Rs.1,27,940/- towards the value of Bus-body after inclusion of depreciation @10% per annum of Rs.1,95,000/-, initial payment paid Rs.42,627/- by the complainant, payment by installments i.e. Rs.5,22,403/- in total Rs.6,92,970/- and @ 12% interest per annum of Rs.6,92,970/- from the date of possession of the Bus/vehicle i.e. on dt.17.08.2000 within one month of receipt of this order, failing which @15% of interest p.a. will be attracted till realization of the above amount and the complainant to realize the above amount initiating the execution proceeding before this Forum. Further, the complainant is also entitled to get Rs.10,000/- towards compensation and Rs.5,000/- as cost of litigation from OP.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by not going through the written version of the OP. It ought to have applied the judicial mind to the fact that the Hire Purchase Act, 1972 has been repealed after few months of its commenced and this agreement between the OP and the complainant was executed in accordance with Indian Contract Act. He further submitted that when the Hire Purchase Act is not available on the date of filing of the complaint case or on the date execution of agreement, the question of taking plea by the complainant and the decision of District Forum accepting the plea are all illegal and improper.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the learned District Forum has also passed the impugned order without having any jurisdiction to pass the same. He drew attention of the Commission to the order dated 31.8.2005 where the complaint was dismissed for default but later on 20.11.2007 the same has been restored although there is no provision under the Act to review the own order by the learned District Forum. According to him, when the District Forum has no jurisdiction to restore the order passed by it, the subsequent proceeding including the impugned order are all illegal and improper. So, he submitted to allow the appeal by setting aside the impugned order.

8.      Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and perused the DFR including the impugned order.

9.      It is admitted fact that the vehicle has been purchased by the complainant being financed by the OP Bank. It is not in dispute that there was agreement of hire purchase executed between the parties spelling out to repay loan in 35 instalments. It is not in dispute that the vehicle has been repossessed by the OP in 2000. It is well settled in law that onus lies on the complainant to prove the deficiency of service on the part of the OP.

10.    The grounds taken by the learned counsel for the appellant are to be considered at first. The plea of the complainant as to  application  of Hire Purchase Act in the complaint case is actually not applicable because said Act  has been repealed since long. This view has been reinforced by the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. So any infringement of provision of Hire Purchase Act cannot be a ground to allow the complaint by the learned District Forum.

11.    It is also eye catching for this Commission to take the view whereunder it is found that on 31.8.2005 the complaint was dismissed for default. After that a petition was filed to restore the complaint. Notice was issued. Finally, on 20.11.2007 the complaint was restored to file after hearing of course both parties. The present appellant although alleged about on the point of jurisdiction,  but never challenged such order till filing of the present appeal. When the final order of the complaint case went against him, then the appellant came out of slumber and pointed out the jurisdictional aspect. It is well settled in law that jurisdictional error can be raised at any time. However, in the Act, there is no provision to review the own order. When the complaint has been dismissed for default, the learned District Forum has no power to review the same under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. Therefore, the order dated 20.11.2007 is illegal and subsequent passing of impugned order are also illegal. Therefore, on this ground alone the appeal succeeds.

12.    So far repossession of the vehicle is concerned, it is not necessary to go through the same as the appeal is succeeds on the aforesaid two grounds. Hence, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal stands allowed.

         DFR be sent back forthwith.

          Statutory amount deposited be refunded to the appellant with interest accrued thereon on, if any on proper identification.

          Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties.