Heard learned counsel for  both the sides.

2.              This appeal is  filed  U/S-15 of erstwhile  Consumer Protection Act,1986(herein-after called the Act). Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.                   The case     of  complainant, in nutshell   is that the complainant had purchased the vehicle bearing Regd.No. OR 16 B 1087 being financed  by the OP for Rs.10,21,027/-. The complainant allegedly made down payment of Rs.1,50,000/-. It is alleged inter-alia that  the complainant while paying all the instalments regularly there was some instalment who could not be paid  and OP without any notice seized the vehicle on 13.06.2007. Thereafter the vehicle was disposed of by the OP. Inspite of approach  the vehicle could not be released. Hence, the complaint was filed.

4.            The OP    filed written version stating that there was  outstanding of Rs.1,05,062/- as on 26.01.2007. Inspite of notice and reminder the outstanding amount was not paid for which they have seized the vehicle as per the agreement. Therefore, they have no deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

.5.                       After hearing both the parties, learned District Forum   passed the following order:-

               Xxxx              xxxx              xxxx

                                “ Thus under the above circumstances, we allow, the case of the complainant and direct the OP to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/-(Rupees three lakh) only as compensation for loss and harassment to the complainant within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order failing which it would carry 12 % interest per annum on the above awarded amount from the date of receipt of this order till the date of actual payment.

               The case is disposed of accordingly. Complaint is allowed.”

6.                  Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that   learned District Forum has committed error in law by not considering  the written version filed by the OP with proper perspectives. According to him   they have issued notice on 04.02.2006 showing outstanding amount against  the OP but inspite of that the complainant defaulted to pay the arrear  as per clause 18 (o) of the agreement, they have seized the vehicle and sold the vehicle  as  they did not approach to take back the vehicle on payment of outstanding amount. Learned District Forum ought to have considered  all these facts. So, same should be set-aside. 

7.             Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that  after the notice issued on January,2007 they have paid Rs.60,000/- with the OP but the vehicle was sold. So, the action of the OP was illegal and as such learned District Forum rightly judged the case. He supports the impugned order.

8.               Considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties,  perused the DFR and impugned order.

9.                       The only question arises in this case whether the seizure of the vehicle is legal or illegal and  subsequent sale of the vehicle is legal or not. It is admitted fact that the vehicle was purchased on being financed by the OP. It is also not in dispute  that he incurred loan and  the agreement was executed between the parties. It is also admitted fact that that vehicle has been sold on 13.06.2007. The complainant is required to prove the case and deficiency in service on the part of the OP.

10.        We have gone through the  notices issued by the  OP. The notices are silent as to the amount outstanding  against the complainant, so that they are required  to take possession of the vehicle. Apart from  this the written version is also equally silent  as to how much amount outstanding on  the date of seizure of the vehicle. When the  amount has not been mentioned in the notice, the submission  on behalf of the appellant that the OP is aware of the outstanding amount, is nothing but to cover up the case of the appellant. Since, the notices are not very clear showing the default amount payable by the complainant,  the seizure of the vehicle  upon the above incognito  notice is illegal.  

11. Moreover  clause-18 of the agreement is unclear to show that they can seize the vehicle in the event of default which is not notified.  The clause-18 is also not clear to show that the vehicle can be  repossessed  without any due notice where demand amount  is not specified. Be that as it may, complainant has proved deficiency in service on the part of OP. So, there is nothing to interfere   in the impugned order. As  such it is confirmed. But Rs.3 lakhs has been awarded as compensation whereas  complainant has asked for Rs.2 lakhs as compensation. Considered  nature of case and allegation, we modify this impugned order by directing  OP to pay Rs.1,75,000/- as compensation to the complainant within  45 days from the date of this order, failing  which the impugned order would remain in force.

              Therefore, the appeal is disposed of accordingly.

             Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective parties or they may download same from the confonet  or webtsite of this  Commission to treat same as copy of order received from this Commission.  

            DFR be sent back forthwith.