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.   The case of the complainant in nutshell is that complainant has purchased an Auto rickshaw by incurring loan of Rs.1,89,647/- from the OP on the condition to repay the same in 48 instalments. It is alleged by the complainant that he paid maximum instalments but there are certain arrears outstanding against the complainant. During the currency of the loan amount, the brother of the complainant fell ill and the Auto rickshaw did not run. At the same time, it is alleged that the Auto rickshaw while in running condition met accident. It is alleged inter alia that the OP on 8.11.2018 forcibly repossessed the Auto rickshaw. Thereafter, the complainant approached the OP to release the vehicle. The OP asked the complainant to clear the outstanding amount but the complainant did not deposit the same and filed the complaint.

4.      OP appeared but did not file written version. So the matter was heard ex parte.

5.      Learned District Forum after hearing learned counsel for the complainant passed the following impugned order:-

                             “xxx   xxx   xxx

Considering the above fact and circumstance the OP is directed to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Fifty thousand only) within one month after receipt of this order failing which the petitioner can take step as per law.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant is a defaulter by not paying the EMIs regularly. Under the agreement, the OP after issuing notice to the complainant repossessed the vehicle. There is no illegality with the OP. However, he submitted that notice has been served on the OP but the local counsel did not take step and for that the present appellant has been set ex parte. If proper opportunity is given, they would   place the material for disposal on merit. Therefore, he submitted to remand the matter for denovo hearing.

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

8.      Since the matter has been heard ex parte and as it appears due to absence of lawyer, OP was set ex parte whereas the settled law is that the party should not be allowed to suffer due to latches of the lawyer, so this Commission is inclined to set aside the impugned order by remanding the matter for denovo hearing.

9.      In view of above discussion, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed by remanding matter for denovo hearing subject to payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- by the OP/appellant to the complainant who has suffered for protracting the disposal of the case. The necessary payment be made before the learned District Forum after which the learned District Forum would allow the OP to file written version and both parties to be given opportunity of adducing evidence if any and thereafter the learned District Forum would dispose of the matter basing on the materials on record within 45 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Free copy be supplied to both the parties who would appear before the learned District Forum on 13.7.2021 to take further instruction from it. Parties may also download  the copy of this order from Confonet or Website of this Commission and place same to learned District Forum on the said date for receiving  the further information. No cost.

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

           DFR be sent back forthwith.