1. The appellants / Opposite Parties have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the Order dated18.12.2012 passed in CC. No. 101/2012 on the file of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Bijapur.

2. The brief facts of the complaint are hereunder; It is the case of the complainants that the Opposite Parties are the financiers and the complainant is the borrower under the Opposite Party No. 2 who had entered into loan - cum - hypothecation agreement on 20.05.2009 for Rs.4,50,000 in connection with the purchase of commercial vehicle / Tipper Lorry bearing registration No. KA - 25 - A - 9256 agreeing to repay the same in 48 monthly installments at Rs.7,33,500 and to pay the other charges in accordance with the terms of the contract. The complainant had availed the additional loan of Rs.20,000 on 24.03.2010 towards the purchase of tyres to the said vehicle. The complainant purchased the said vehicle for his livelihood. The complainant further alleged that during October 2011 the complainant was ready to close the loan account, but, the Opposite Parties were refused the same. On 20.11.2011 the Opposite Parties informed the complainant through telegraphic and seized the vehicle of the complainant. For which the complainant sent a legal notice dt.30.4.2012 to the Opposite Parties to close the loan account and return the vehicle along with costs and compensation. Hence, the complaint.

3. After service of the notice, the Opposite Parties appeared before the District Commission through Counsel and filed version and contended that the complainant failed to pay the installments regularly as stipulated in the loan - cum - hypothecation agreement and he had willfully defaulted in payment of the monthly installments in terms of the contract existing between the parties. In view of the non - receipt of the installments and inspite of repeated demands, the Opposite Parties issued a demand notices in writing, but, the complainant failed to pay the due amount or to regularize the installments. Hence, with no other option, the Opposite Parties have taken possession of the vehicle in respect of which the Opposite Parties have got issued notice to the complainant on 14.11.2011 and after due intimation to the complainant, the Opposite Parties had repossessed the vehicle on 19.11.2011. Even after repossession of the vehicle, the complainant failed to pay the due amount, hence, the Opposite Parties issued a demand notice to the complainant on 25.08.2012 demanding to pay the due amount of Rs.6,75,492 towards one time settlement. Instead of making the payment, the complainant had filed a complaint before the District Commission. Hence, there is no any deficiency in service on the part of the Opposite Parties and prayed to dismiss the complaint.

4. After trial, the District Commission allowed complaint and directed the Opposite Parties to pay Rs.2,42,150 to the complainant with interest at 12% p.a. from 19.11.2011, till payment along with costs.

5. Aggrieved by the said Order, the appellants / Opposite Parties are in appeal. Heard the arguments of appellant.

6. Perused the appeal memo, Order passed by the District Commission and materials on record, we noticed that the appellants and respondent had entered into an hypothecation agreement on 20.5.2009 for Rs.4,50,000 for purchase of commercial vehicle Tipper / Lorry bearing registration No. KA - 25 - A - 9256 and the respondent was agreed to repay the same in 48 monthly installments in total Rs.7,33,500 and other charges in accordance with the terms and conditions of hypothecation agreement. It is also in dispute that the respondent had availed additional loan of Rs.20,000 on 24.3.2010 to purchase tyres to the said vehicle. However, the respondent failed to pay the installments regularly. For which the appellants issued several demand notices, but, the respondent failed to pay the due amount and regularize the installments. The respondent was a defaulter so that the appellants got issue a n