ORDER Justice P.S. Rana (R) President —Present appeal is filed under section 15 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 against order passed by learned District Forum in consumer complaint No.236 of 2012 title Pawan v. Shri Ram Transport Finance Company Limited & Anr. decided on 20.04.2016 wherein learned District Forum dismissed complaint of complainant. Brief facts of Case : 2. Complainant Pawan filed complaint under section 12 of Consumer Protection Act 1986 before learned District Forum pleaded therein that complainant purchased a vehicle bearing No. HP-62A-2022 (Truck AL 1112) to earn his livelihood. It is pleaded that complainant is a driver. It is further pleaded that vehicle was financed by opposite party No.2 Shri Ram General Transport Finance Co. Ltd. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.2 obtained sign of complainant upon blank cheques for disbursement of loan amount. It is further pleaded that total sale consideration price of vehicle was Rs.960206/- (Nine lacs sixty thousand two hundred and six). It is further pleaded that complainant obtained loan from opposite party No.2 in the year 2006 which was to be returned in monthly equal instalments of Rs.17400/- (Seventeen thousand four hundred) per month. It is further pleaded that opposite party No.2 sent letter annexure C-1 relating to default in payment of instalments. It is further pleaded that complainant had paid regular instalments. It is pleaded that complainant had paid some instalments in a delayed manner. It is further pleaded that complainant paid an amount of 459969/- (Four lacs fifty nine thousand nine hundred sixty nine). It is further pleaded that complainant has paid excess amount to the tune of Rs.24969/- (Twenty four thousand nine hundred sixty nine). It is further pleaded that despite the fact that complainant has paid excess amount opposite parties forcibly snatched vehicle of complainant on 27.07.2012 from Azadpur market Delhi. It is further pleaded that complainant has purchased vehicle for earning his livelihood. It is further pleaded that despite the fact that complainant has paid excess amount opposite parties forcibly snatched vehicle of complainant on 27.07.2012 from Azadpur market Delhi. It is further pleaded that complainant has purchased vehicle for earning his livelihood. Complainant sought following reliefs (i) To restrain opposite parties from selling vehicle of complainant or any part of vehicle (ii) Complainant sought additional relief to return snatched vehicle of complainant bearing No. HP-62A-2022 (iii) Complainant also sought alternative relief of return of Rs.765175/- (Seven lacs sixty five thousand one hundred seventy five) i.e. earnest money + instalments amount already paid to opposite parties (iv) Complainant also sought relief to cancel all collection of agent and other charges (v) In addition complainant sought relief of Rs.100000/- (One lac) for mental harassment & tension (vi) In addition complainant also sought relief of Rs.5000/- (Five thousand) per day from the date of snatching of vehicle (vii) Complainant also sought litigation costs to the tune of Rs.20000/- (Twenty thousand). 3. Per contra version filed on behalf of opposite parties pleaded therein that complaint is not maintainable and complainant is not a consumer. It is pleaded that complaint is barred by limitation. It is further pleaded that District Forum has no jurisdiction to try the complaint. It is further pleaded that complainant has suppressed material facts. It is pleaded that complainant has financed vehicle in question for commercial purpose. It is admitted that complainant had purchased a truck bearing No. HP-62A-2022 and sought financial assistance from opposite parties. It is further pleaded that loan amount was to be paid in fifty five equal monthly instalments. It is further pleaded that complainant was under legal obligation to pay first instalment to the tune of Rs.18992/- (Eighteen thousand nine hundred ninety two) and was also under legal obligation to pay second instalment to the tune of Rs. 19014/- (Nineteen thousand and fourteen). It is further pleaded that rest of fifty three instalments were to be paid by complainant @ Rs.17400/- (Seventeen thousand four hundred) per month. It is denied that complainant has paid an amount of Rs.305206/- (Three lacs five thousand two hundred and six) as earnest money to the opposite parties. It is also denied that opposite parties obtained signatures of complainant upon blank papers and upon blank cheques. It is denied that complainant has paid an amount of Rs.305206/- (Three lacs five thousand two hundred and six) as earnest money to the opposite parties. It is also denied that opposite parties obtained signatures of complainant upon blank papers and upon blank cheques. It is pleaded that complainant failed to comply terms of loan agreement and defaulted in his repayment schedule and notice was also issued to complainant by opposite parties. It is pleaded that complainant did not pay regular instalments of his loan amount and committed successive default in repayment schedule of instalments. It is pleaded that considerable amount is due from complainant as per statement of account already placed on record. It is denied that opposite parties forcibly snatched vehicle on 27.07.2012. It is further pleaded that vehicle was handed over by complainant to opposite parties and inventory was prepared. It is pleaded that complainant had himself surrendered vehicle to opposite parties at his own. It is further pleaded that no cause of action accrued in favour of complainant. Prayer for dismissal of complaint sought. 4. Learned District Forum dismissed complaint on 20.04.2016.Feeling aggrieved against order passed by Learned District Forum complainant Pawan filed present appeal before State Commission. 5. We have heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant and we have also heard learned advocate appearing on behalf of respondents and we have also perused entire record carefully. 6. Following points arises for determination in present appeal. 1. Whether appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be accepted as mentioned in memorandum of grounds of appeal. 2. Final order. Findings upon point No.1 with reasons : 7. Complainant Pawan filed affidavit by way of evidence. There is recital in affidavit that complainant purchased vehicle bearing No.HP-62A-2022 to earn his livelihood. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant is driver by profession. There is further recital in affidavit that vehicle was financed by opposite party No.2 and terms & conditions were not supplied to complainant at the time of sale of vehicle in question. There is further recital in affidavit that some blank papers were signed. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party No.2 had obtained blank cheque from complainant. There is further recital in affidavit that total sale price of vehicle was Rs.960206/- (Nine lacs sixty thousand two hundred and six). There is further recital in affidavit that some blank papers were signed. There is further recital in affidavit that opposite party No.2 had obtained blank cheque from complainant. There is further recital in affidavit that total sale price of vehicle was Rs.960206/- (Nine lacs sixty thousand two hundred and six). There is further recital in affidavit that earnest money of Rs.305206/- paid to opposite parties. There is further recital in affidavit that loan amount was to be returned in equal monthly instalments of Rs.17400/- (Seventeen thousand four hundred). There is further recital in affidavit that loan amount was paid by way of regular instalments except that some instalments were paid in a delayed manner. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant paid an amount of Rs.459969/- (Four lacs fifty nine thousand six hundred sixty nine). There is further recital in affidavit that deponent paid excess amount to opposite parties to the tune of Rs.24969/- (Twenty four thousand nine hundred sixty nine). There is further recital in affidavit that on dated 27.07.2012 opposite parties snatched vehicle from Azadpur market Delhi. There is further recital in affidavit that inventory was prepared without associating complainant or his authorised representative. There is further recital in affidavit that deponent faced physical, mental as well as monetary loss. 8. Per contra Shri Amrik Lal Attri authorised officer also filed affidavit by way of evidence on behalf of Finance Company. There is recital in affidavit that vehicle was financed for commercial purpose. There is further recital in affidavit that complainant purchased a truck bearing No. HP-62A-2022 and sought financial assistance from opposite parties. There is further recital in affidavit that loan amount was repayable in fifty five equal monthly instalments. There is further recital in affidavit that copy of loan-cum-hypothecation agreement is annexure R-1. There is further recital in affidavit that notice was issued to complainant for non-payment of instalments amount. There is recital in affidavit that complainant committed successive default in payment of loan amount. 9. Complainant also filed affidavit by way of rebuttal evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that opposite parties issued a legal notice on dated 18.07.2014 and inquired from complainant about whereabouts of vehicle. There is further recital in affidavit that reply to notice was filed by complainant. 10. 9. Complainant also filed affidavit by way of rebuttal evidence. There is recital in the affidavit that opposite parties issued a legal notice on dated 18.07.2014 and inquired from complainant about whereabouts of vehicle. There is further recital in affidavit that reply to notice was filed by complainant. 10. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf appellant that appellant has paid excess amount to the tune of Rs.24969/- (Twenty four thousand nine hundred sixty nine) to the finance company and on this ground appeal be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Appellant has simply filed his affidavit in evidence. Appellant did not place on record any payment receipts on record in order to prove that appellant had paid excess amount to the tune of Rs.24969/- (Twenty four thousand nine hundred sixty nine). Affidavit filed by appellant is rebutted by finance company by way of affidavit. In absence of corroborative payment receipts on record it is not expedient in the ends of justice to hold that appellant had paid excess amount to finance company to the tune of Rs.24969/- (Twenty four thousand nine hundred sixty nine). Plea that complainant paid excess amount to the finance company is defeated on the concept of ipse-dixit (An assertion made without proof). 11. Submission of learned advocate appearing on behalf of appellant that finance company was not legally competent to take possession of vehicle from complainant and on this ground appeal be allowed is rejected being devoid of any force for reasons hereinafter mentioned. Complainant has executed loan-cum-hypothecation agreement annexure R-1 placed on record by finance company. We have carefully perused terms and conditions of loan-cum-hypothecation agreement executed inter se parties. As per condition No.6 of loan-cum-hypothecation agreement it was agreed inter se parties that finance company would be competent to take possession of hypothecated vehicle in case instalments are not paid in due time. We have also perused schedule of hypothecated asset placed on record. Appellant had hypothecated vehicle No. HP-62A-2022 with finance company. We have also perused schedule of payments placed on record. We have also perused schedule of hypothecated asset placed on record. Appellant had hypothecated vehicle No. HP-62A-2022 with finance company. We have also perused schedule of payments placed on record. As per schedule of payment complainant was under legal obligation to repay loan amount in fifty five instalments out of which two instalments were to the tune of Rs.18992/- (Eighteen thousand nine hundred ninety two) and 19014/- (Nineteen thousand and fourteen) and other instalments were to the tune of Rs.17400/- (Seventeen thousand four hundred) per month. We have also perused annexure R-2 statement of account placed on record by finance company. As per annexure R-2 appellant was liable to pay loan amount to the tune Rs.1248140.83 (Twelve lacs forty eight thousand one hundred forty rupees and eighty three paisa). Loan-cum-hypothecation agreement is signed by appellant, guarantor and finance company. Appellant has himself admitted in affidavit that he has paid some instalments in delayed manner. It is well settled that terms and conditions of agreement cannot be unilaterally changed by any of the parties. It is well settled law that parties are bound by agreement and nothing could be added or detracted from agreement by any of the parties after execution of agreement. See 2017 Vol. (I) CPR 315 NC title M/s. Krishna Kunj v. Rabindra Nath Basu & Ors. It also well settled law that if one of the parties to agreement fails to perform his part of contract it cannot compel other party of agreement to perform its part which other party was required to perform. See 2017 Vol. (I) CPR 344 NC Jasvinder Kaur v. Parsvnath Developers Ltd. & Anr. It is proved on record that appellant has executed loan-cum-hypothecation agreement annexure R-1 with the financer. It is also proved on record that vehicle was hypothecated with finance company. It is well settled law that under hypothecation agreement finance company is owner of subject matter and purchaser is only hirer who would acquire ownership right after clearing entire loan amount. It also well settled law that Finance Company can take possession of vehicle after giving notice of default for repayment of loan amount. See 2017 (I) CPR 86 NC Dewar Motors @ Dewesh Motors v. Uttam Bhuyia. It is proved on record that finance company has given notice annexure C-5 to complainant relating to default of payment of loan amount on 18.07.2014. See 2017 (I) CPR 86 NC Dewar Motors @ Dewesh Motors v. Uttam Bhuyia. It is proved on record that finance company has given notice annexure C-5 to complainant relating to default of payment of loan amount on 18.07.2014. In view of above stated facts and case law cited supra point No.1 is answered in negative. Point No.2: Final Order 12. In view of findings upon point No.1 appeal is dismissed. Order of Learned District Forum is affirmed. Loan-cum-hypothecation agreement annexure R-1 and statement of account annexure R-2 placed on record will form part and parcel of order. Parties are left to bear their own costs. File of learned District Forum along with certified copy of order be sent back forthwith and file of State Commission be consigned to record room after due completion forthwith. Certified copy of order be transmitted to parties forthwith strictly as per rules. Appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s) if any also disposed of.