IMPORTANT POINT
Prior to sale of repossessed vehicle, in accordance with principles of natural justice, borrower has to be put to notice.

M. Shreesha, Presiding Member—Challenge in this Revision Petition, under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, is to the order dated 10.07.2017, passed by the Uttar Pradesh State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Lucknow (for short “the State Commission”) in Appeal No. 488 of 2014. Vide the impugned order, the State Commission has allowed the Appeal in part; set aside the order dated 22.01.2014, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Sitapur (for short “the District Forum”) in Complaint Case No. 116 of 2009; and directed Magma Fincorp Ltd. (for short “the Finance Company”), the Revision Petitioner herein, to pay to the Appellant/Complainant a sum of Rs.1,53,952/-, with interest @ 9% p.a. on the said amount from the date of filing of the Complaint till payment. In the first instance, the District Forum had dismissed the Complaint, preferred by the Complainant.

2. Briefly put, the facts material to the case are that the Complainant, owner of Marshal Maxx vehicle, took a loan of Rs.3,75,000/- from the Finance Company. He repaid a total sum of Rs.2,34,000/- on different occasions, up-to 30.06.2009. It was averred that the subject vehicle was challaned on two occasions, i.e. 30.06.2007 and 17.07.2008; the Complainant had to spent substantial amounts in order to get the vehicle released; and, therefore, she could not repay 1-2 instalments on time. It was further pleaded that the Finance Company seized the vehicle from the driver of the Complainant in Village and Post Ataria, District Sitapur, U.P., without giving prior intimation to the Complainant. Despite several requests, the vehicle was not released and fearing that the Finance Company would auction the same, the Complainant approached the District Forum, seeking a direction to the Finance Company to return the vehicle to her, along with compensation and costs.

3. The Finance Company resisted the Complaint, admitting that the Complainant had availed a loan of Rs.3,75,000/-. It was contended on its behalf that the Complainant never deposited the instalments on time and though the Complainant had to repay the dues in 47 instalments of Rs.11,451/- each between 01.01.2006 and 31.08.2010, she had deposited only Rs.3,48,589/- in total. It was averred that an amount of Rs.1,00,569/- was still due against the Complainant. Despite several reminders, the Complainant did not pay the requisite instalments and, therefore, the Finance Company took possession of the vehicle and initiated the sale process. The Complainant was called upon to repay the amount due but she never turned up and ultimately the vehicle was sold at Rs.1,10,000/- and the said amount was adjusted against the amount due from the Complainant. Hence, repossession of the vehicle was justified and no deficiency in service could be attributed to the Finance Company.

4. The District Forum, based on the evidence adduced, dismissed the Complaint on the ground that there was no deficiency in service on the part of the Finance Company.

5. Aggrieved with the said order, the Complainant preferred the Appeal before the State Commission. The State Commission allowed the Appeal in part. The finding of the State Commission is being reproduced verbatim, despite the fact that it is hopelessly translated. The same reads as follows:—

“There is a force in the appeal filed by the appellant. And the judgment in question is liable to be set aside. As the vehicle in question has been sold off by the opposite party long ago the same cannot be brought back in the same condition. Thus, it will be in the interest of justice, to make opposite party pay the damages to the complainant/appellant. As per the calculation chart filed by the appellant alongwith the written facts, the cost of the vehicle in question was Rs.4,64,666/- in 2006 and the depreciated value of the same was Rs.2,85,363/- in 2009. In 2009 the remaining loan amount payable was Rs.1,31,411/-. Thus after subtracting, the payable loan amount of Rs