Heard learned counsel for the appellants. 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 unfolded story of the complainant is that complainant in order to purchase a vehicle bearing Registration No.OR-16C-1610 for earning his livelihood has incurred loan of Rs.5,50,000/- from the OPs on 26.11.2016. As per the agreement complainant was to make the repayment of the incurred amount on instalment basis. While the matter stood thus on 17.11.2017 the OPs without any service of notice forcibly repossessed the vehicle. Thereafter, complainant appeared before the OPs to release the vehicle but he was not successful. So, alleging deficiency in service, the complaint was filed.

4.      OPs filed written version stating that the content of the agreement is binding upon them. It is sated that the complainant has taken loan and remained default for payment of the EMIs and after necessary notice, they have lawfully repossessed the vehicle and after repossession they have lawfully sold the vehicle. Therefore, there is no deficiency in service on their part.

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

                    “xxx   xxx   xxx

In view of our forgoing discussion we come to the conclusion that the OPs are held to be guilty for illegal an unlawful seizure with auction sale of the vehicle. For the reasons aforesaid and under the facts and circumstances, the finance company OPs 1 to 2 are bound to restore possession of the vehicle to the compliant or to return the loan instalments amount as has been paid by the complainant in respect to the finance of vehicle. The first course is not possible as the vehicle has been sold to a third party. Because of the illegal action, the complainant has suffer financially by paying some instalments with interest and therefore he should be adequately compensated and as there is no vehicle in possession of the complainant to earn his income, the finance company OP No. 1 & 2 has to return the loan instalments amount already received from the complainant  or to made payment of the cost value of repossessed vehicle with Rs.50,000/- as compensation and litigation expenses to the complainant. Considering the aforesaid gross deficiency in the services on the part of the company OPs 1 to 2, we direct accordingly with issue of loan clearance certificate to the complainant. Further we direct the OPs 1 to 2 jointly to comply the aforesaid order within 30 (thirty) days of receipt of this order, failing which they are  jointly and severally entitled to pay Rs.500/- per day extra as cost till the date of issuing clearance certificate to the complainant.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently urged that the learned District Forum has committed error in law by not going throug