1.	Arun Kumar Goel (Retd), President - Appellant has challenged the order of District Forum, Kullu, Camp at Manali in Consumer Complaint No.1 03/2007 passed on 24.12.2007. While allowing the complaint, Appellant has been directed to pay Rs. 2,00,000 to the Respondent, with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the complaint, i.e. 11.7.2007 till payment, and cost of Rs. 2,000/-. Facts on which learned counsel for the parties were not at variance at the time of hearing are that the Respondent purchased a Swaraj Mazda Truck. He paid the margin money of Rs. 1,41,000, whereas balance sum of Rs. 3,58,000 was financed by the Appellant financier. In this behalf, it may be worthwhile to mention that the margin money though was paid by the Respondent, but it was routed through the Appellant along with the finance provided by it. Financed amount was repayable in 47 equated monthly installments of Rs. 11,340 commencing from 21.7.2002. During the course of hearing it transpired that 37 installments were paid by the Respondent regularly according to him, which position was seriously contested by learned counsel for the Appellant. Similarly, it was submitted on behalf of the Respondent that only two installments were in default, i.e. of August and September 2005. It was also the case of the Respondent that when the vehicle was repossessed on 19.9.2005 installment of August 2005 only was in default and installment for the month of September 2005 had not become payable. After repossessing the vehicle, it was sold on 23.1.2006 for Rs. 1,60,000.
2.	In this background, Complaint No. 103/2007 was filed by the Respondent alleging deficiency in service against the Appellant. His case was that without affording any opportunity to him to arrange for clearance of the defaulted amount, the vehicle was forcibly, wrongly and illegally repossessed by the Appellant. In case opportunity had been provided to him, he would have paid the defaulted installment, and the remaining 9 installments would also have been regularly paid by him especially when major part of the finance raised by him from the Appellant with interest had already been cleared. Receipt of 37 installments is not in dispute, what was challenged at the time of hearing of this appeal by Mr Chandel on behalf of the Appellant was that the District Forum Kullu had no jurisdiction to have entertained, much less adjudicated upon the complaint. In addition to this, per him, the District Forum below was in error when it held that original receipts were of the value of Rs. 4,12,000, because only Rs. 3,65,759 was paid by the Respondent that too intermittently. After repossession of the vehicle, notices (Annexure R4 dated 21.9.2005, R5 dated 13.10.2005) and another notice dated 22.10.2005 were issued by his client. Finally, it was urged that this being a matter of accounts cannot be adjudicated upon under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986; thus, he prayed for allowing the appeal and setting aside the impugned order, consequently dismissing complaint. All these pleas were seriously resisted and contested by Ajay Chandel, learned counsel for the Respondent. Per him, on the basis of the material on record particularly reply to complaint filed by the Appellant, a receipt filed by his client, no exception can be taken to the impugned order as it suffers from no infirmity in the eyes of law. Besides this, there was dispute of accounts as claimed on behalf of the Appellant. Thus, he prayed for dismissing the appeal with costs.
3.	We specifically called upon the learned counsel for the Appellant to verify from the copies of the receipts, as well as from the copies of the bank drafts which are produced by the Respondent on the complaint file, as to what was the sum received by the Appellant towards the loan account. Mr N S Chandel (learned counsel for Appellant) was not in a position to push further his submission that only a sum of Rs. 3,65,759 had been paid by the Respondent. That being the position we are of the view that the impugned order passed by the District Form below while allowing the complaint does not suffer from any infirmity, which may justify interference with it. In this behalf, we are further of the view that after having repossessed the vehicle, Appellant should have got the valuation of the vehicle done. When we asked Mr N S Chandel in this behalf, he informed on instructions received from Vinod Kumar Singh, Law Officer of the Appellant, that this was not done. Thereafter, whether wide publicity was given about the sale to get best price, learned counsel could not satisfy us. Likewise, whether after having received the highest bid of Rs. 1,60,000 before confirming the same, whether any notice was given to the Respondent to bring a better buyer failing which the sale would be confirmed, answer of Mr N S Chandel was in the negative. According to him, Appellant was not bound to do all this exercise.
4.	We reject this stand of the Appellant. Reason is that these things would have shown that repossession was in accordance with law, if there was transparency in subsequent dealing with the repossessed vehicle by the Appellant. Transparency as to how the vehicle was dealt with by the Appellant was necessary to show that its action was bona fide and reasonable. It would not have been fair only, but also in consonance with public policy.
5.	So far submission of Mr N S Chandel that the District Forum at Kullu had no jurisdiction is concerned, it is noted to be rejected, when he admitted that the vehicle was registered at Kullu and was being plied in the State of Himachal Pradesh. This question is squarely covered by decisions of this Commission in Pradeep Kumar Khurana v. M/s Wheels World; Narinder Kumar Sood v. Punjab Motors, Kurali and Others; and Tata Motors Limited v. Chuni Lal and Others, and other connected appeals. As such, this appeal is rejected.
6.	Similarly, we are of the view that in the peculiar circumstances of this case there was no dispute regarding accounts between the parties, which could not have been one either in the complaint or in this appeal. This we are holding on the basis of material on record produced by the parties. Once this conclusion is arrived at, then this plea urged on behalf of the Appellant by its learned counsel is also without merit and thus rejected.
7.	N S Chandellearned counsel for Appellant referred to hire-purchase-cum-guarantee agreement document (Annexure F6) filed by the Appellant before the District Forum below. No benefit can be derived by the Appellant from its terms for the simple reason that in order to take benefit of this document, vehicle should have been registered in the name of the Appellant and it should have been hired by the Respondent. Admittedly, the registered owner of the vehicle was the Respondent and not the Appellant. Therefore, no benefit can be derived from this document so as to advance the case of Appellant in this appeal.
8.	No other point is urged. I n view of the aforesaid discussion, we find no merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed while upholding the order of the District Forum Kullu, Camp at Manali in Consumer Complaint No. 103/2007 dated 24.12.2007. All interim orders passed from time to time in this appeal shall stand vacated forthwith. Learned counsels for the parties have undertaken to collect copy of this order from the Court Secretary free of cost as per rules.