Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 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 case of the complainant in brief is that the OP persuaded the complainant to purchase a vehicle on being financed by the OP. It is alleged inter alia that the OP financed Rs. 3,90,000/- to purchase the vehicle bearing Registration No. HR-51-M-4585. The OP allegedly  promised to handover all the documents to the complainant but the complainant did not receive any documents in spite of several approaches. In the meantime,the complainant has already paid Rs.3,00,000/-.  It is alleged by the complainant that in spite of paying all the entire loan amount, the documents have not been returned by the OP. However, on 15.9.2018, complainant received a letter from the OP demanding Rs.5,86,331.51 to which complainant challenged. When the OP has not returned any documents of the vehicle in spite of  payment of all the EMIs, such act is  deficiency of service on the part of the OP. So complaint was filed.

4.      OP filed written version admitting about extending loan of Rs.,3,90,000/- to Solution Plus who has to give vehicle document to the complainant  because Solution Plus has sold the vehicle to the complainant. It is also averred in the written version that the complainant did not pay the instalments for which loan was increased up to Rs.5,86,331.51. However, the OP challenged the  complaint stating  that it is barred by limitation and the complaint is also bad for non-joinder of necessary party i.e. Solution Plus.

5.      Learned District Forum after hearing both sides passed the following impugned order:-

                              “xxx   xxx   xxx

Under these circumstances we have no hesitation to allow the complaint petition and direct the OPs finance company to take return back the old used vehicle bearing Regd. NO. HR-51-M-4585 from the complainant and refund the entire EMI amount taken from him with Rs.5,000/- (five thousand) compensation for mental agony and Rs.2000/- (Two thousand) towards cost of litigation within 45 days from receipt of this order or else the entire amount will carry @6% interest till final realization.”

6.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the impugned order is illegal and improper because the learned District Forum has erred in law by not going through the written version of the OP. According to him, the written version is clear to show that he is the financer but not the seller of the vehicle. Whether the vehicle is an old one or new one, it is for the Solution Plus to say but he is not made party to this case. Therefore, the impugned order is illegal and improper.

7.      Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the consumer complaint is barred by limitation as it is filed 13 years after the cause of action arose. He also submitted that the learned District Forum has failed to appreciate the fact that the Solution Plus  being the seller of