Learned counsel for the appellant is present in F.A.152 of 2014 and for  respondent in F.A.37 of 2014 is present.  

2.                    None appears for the respondent in F.A.152 of 2014 and for  appellant in F.A.37 of 2014.  The service of summon against the said respondent is held sufficient. It is found that both the appeals are assailed  against impugned order passed in C.D. No.93 of 2010. Hereinafter, the parties to this appeal shall be referred to  with reference to their respective status before the learned District Forum. The OP No.2 filed F.A. 182 of 2014 challenging impugned order with regard to direction made against it. The complainant filed F.A. 37 of 2014 challenging the impugned order for not granting adequate compensation and the cost.    

  3.                Learned counsel for the appellant in F.A.152 of 2014 submitted  that this is  being small matter where the appellant has been set-exparte inspite of filing written version. So he insisted for hearing today. Complainant being appellant in F.A.37 of 2014 is absent inspite of service of summon sufficient.

   4.                Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the complainant has purchased a commercial truck bearing No.OR-19-D-3402 to earn his livelihood by taking financial assistance from OP No.2. The complainant allegedly paid some instalments but still remained as defaulter. The case of appellant  is that this is a matter between OP No.1  and the complainant  but he is not responsible because it has got only responsibility of financing complainant to purchase the truck and complainant admittedly has surrendered  the truck with OP No.2 due to defect noticed in the truck.  

5.                 Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that at the time of hearing before the District Commission, the lawyer of the present appellant did not appear due to his illness for which the case was not considered properly. So he submitted to remand the case by allowing the appeal so that he can place all the cards before the learned District Commission to defend the case of the appellant.

6.               Considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, perused the DFR and impugned order.

  7.              It is an admitted fact that the present appellant is a financer  and the complainant has purchased the vehicle by obtaining loan from the OP No.2- financer. The complainant has to prove the deficiency of service on the part of Ops.The operative portion of the impugned order is as follows:-

   “ As we have already stated above that the Ops have failed to handle the complainant’s issue in a fair manner it deserves and tried to escape from the entire episode of the case, we have no hesitation to accept the complainant’s claim for the interest of justice fixing liability on the OP.2 for their deficiency in service and unfair trade practice. Hence, it is ordered.

                                        ORDER

         In  the result, the complaint is hereby dismissed ex-parte against the OP.1 and allowed exp-arte against the O.P.2. The demand notice dated 30/07/2009 for Rs.1,12,638.97 is hereby quashed away. The OP.2 is directed not to charge any amount against the loan agreement in respect of the vehicle in question. Compensation for mental agony is fixed at Rs.10,000/- and litigation cost is assessed at Rs.2000/- payable by the OP.2 to the complainant. The order be executed by the OP.2 within a period of one month from the date of communication of this order, failing which the complainant is at liberty to execute the same against the O.P.2 in accordance with law.”

8.        It appears from the above order that the present appellant has been set-exparte although he has filed written version. It is well settled in law that for  the latches of the lawyer the parties should not be allowed to suffer. But the aforesaid order shows that Op No.2 remained absent on the date of hearing and for that case was heard  ex-parte. However, the District Commission has narrated the case of complainant  but the case of the OP No.2 has not been discussed presumably that it has been set ex-parte.

9.           In the result, the impugned order is set-aside and the case is remanded to the learned District Commission to hear both the parties by allowing both the parties to adduce evidence, if any, and dispose of the case  within 45 days from the date of receipt of this order. As the matter is remanded the absence of complainant in F.A.37 of 2014 does not render that appeal dismissed for default.  

       Both the appeals are disposed of accordingly. Both parties are directed to appear before the learned District Commission on 15.01.2021 and file the copy of this order and take instruction from it.     

              Free copy of the order be supplied to the respective  parties.                           

                DFR be sent back forthwith.

                Statutory amount be refunded.