Heard learned counsel for the appellants. None appears for the respondent.

2.      This appeal is filed u/s 15 of the erstwhile Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (hereinafter called the ‘Act’). Parties to these appeals shall be referred to with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum.

3.      The case of the complainants in nutshell is that the complainant had incurred loan from the OPs to purchase a Tipper bearing Registration NO. OR-16D-6552. Thereafter, the loan was regularly paid except default for six instalmetns. It is alleged inter alia that on 8.7.2015 the vehicle was repossessed forcibly by the OPs. When the complainant approached them, they did not release the vehicle So, the complaint was filed.

4.      OPs filed written version stating that the complainant has incurred loan from the OP but remained as defaulter because he did not pay the instalments regularly. Therefore, by following due procedure, they have repossessed the vehicle. Since the complainant has not cleared all the dues, they are going to sell the vehicle. However, on 18.8.2015, they have sold away the vehicle. Therefore,   there was no deficiency in service on the part of the OPs.

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

“xxxxxxxxx

In view of our forgoing discussion we come to the conclusion that the OPs are held to be guilty for illegal seizure of the vehicle. For the reasons aforesaid and under the facts and circumstances rejecting the interim petition earlier as filed by the complainant for release of the seized vehicle, considering in regards to the matter of selling the vehicle on auction sale held to be illegal and we hold that he complaint petition merits consideration and accordingly it is allowed on contest against the OPs by directing OPs to stop for recovery of any outstanding from the complainant rather issue No Dues Certificate to him. Considering the aforesaid gross deficiency in the services on the part of the company OPs, we direct for further payment compensation of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) only towards loss of compensation and litigation to the complainant. The OPs are further directed to comply the aforesaid order and repayment of compensation and litigation cost within 30 (thirty) days of receipt of this order, failing which the same amount will carry interest 12% per annum as penal interest till payment.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that  the learned District Forum committed error in law by not considering the written version with proper perspectives. Moreover, he submitted that the complainant was not regularly paying the instalments for which there was arrear and there was violation of the condition of the agreement. Since arrears were pending, they have repossessed the vehicle with due notice to the complainant and also they are going to sell the vehicle. As per the agreement, they have repossessed the vehicle but the learned District Forum ought to have considered and applied judicial mind to the facts of the case. Therefore, he submitted to set aside the impugned order by allowing the appeal.

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

8.      It is  clear from the pleadings that complainant has incurred loan from the OPs and he was also admittedly defaulter for some part of the payment. It is also not in dispute that no notice of seizure was issued before the seizure of the vehicle because no document is filed by the appellant. But there is document to  show the price quoted for sale of the vehicle. When no notice is issued, admittedly, showing the demand amount does not hold proper to seize the vehicle without any notice. We have gone through the agreement but the agreement was not clear that the vehicle can be repossessed without any notice. Therefore, the seizure is illegal. Consequently,thesale is also illegal. However, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the amount of compensation is in higher side. Therefore, it should be considered to minimize the same. We have gone through the impugned order and find that there is no justification to impose compensation of Rs.50,000/- but by modifying the same, we direct the OPs to pay Rs.25,000/- to the complainant as compensation. Rest part of the impugned order remains unaltered.

9.      The appeal is allowed in part. No cost.

          DFR be sent back forthwith.

          Supply free copy of this order to the respective parties or the copy of this order be downloaded from Confonet or Website of this Commission to treat same as copy supplied from this Commission.