JUDGMENT - G.R. BEDGE, MEMBER :---The appellant is challenging the order passed by the District Forum, Ratnagiri in Complaint No. 3/98 whereby the appellant has been directed to pay an amount of Rs. 36,500/- because of the confiscation of the 3 wheeler by the Police. 2. The complaint before the Forum was that on 30-3-96, the respondent/complainant purchased a three wheeler for an amount of Rs. 36,500/-. The complainant paid the entire amount to the appellant on 21-4-96 and took over the delivery . But the appellant did not transfer the requisite documents to enable the complainant to get his name recorded on the various papers. The complainant submitted before the Forum that it is not enough to hand over the vehicle, but it was the responsibility of the seller to hand over all the documents and provide the legal ownership of the vehicle to the respondent/complainant. Because of the failure of the appellant, the name of the respondent/complainant remained to be recorded in the R.T.O.'s record and, therefore, his vehicle came to be confiscated by the Police. The District Forum held the appellant responsible because for want of document, the vehicle was confiscated by the Police. Therefore, it passed the impugned order. 3. The case of the appellant is that the respondent was fully aware of the wantings in the documents and the vehicle was not confiscated for want of documents. Shri Vaidya, learned Counsel for the appellant elaborately submitted that the complainant was using the vehicle for illegal and criminal activities. He has submitted papers in support of his arguments and the copy of the panchanama which reveals that the complainant was arrested by the Police on 13-8-97. The panchanama was drawn in the presence of the panchas and it was found during the search of the vehicle that he was carrying unlicensed arms ammunition illegally. There is a copy of the investigation made by the Police on 17-7-97. This also reveals the criminal activities of the complainant. Shri P.S. Datey, the learned Counsel was fair enough in admitting that the vehicle was not confiscated for want of legal documents but on account of the criminal activities of the complainant. Shri Vaidya, Advocate further submitted that at the most, for want of requisite forms documents, an amount of Rs. This also reveals the criminal activities of the complainant. Shri P.S. Datey, the learned Counsel was fair enough in admitting that the vehicle was not confiscated for want of legal documents but on account of the criminal activities of the complainant. Shri Vaidya, Advocate further submitted that at the most, for want of requisite forms documents, an amount of Rs. 100/- could be recovered by the R.T.O's Office from the complainant and there could be no question of confiscation of the vehicle. 4. On careful scrutiny of the documents placed before us and the legal provisions of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1985 we find that the appellant was not responsible in any way for the confiscation of the vehicle by the Police. It was seized by the Police and confiscated as a Muddemal property in criminal case for which the appellant is not at all responsible. The District Forum was patently wrong in not considering these aspects and not going to the root of the cause of the confiscation. Therefore, its order has to be quashed set aside. Accordingly, the following order. ORDER 5. The appeal is allowed. The order of the District Forum is set aside. The original complaint is dismissed. No order as to cost. Appeal allowed.