The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for following due procedure as laid down under the guidelines issued by Reserve Bank of India for repossession of vehicles, including the need for notice to be sent to the complainant before repossession and before the sale of the vehicle.

ORDER

Mr. Prem Narain, Presiding Member.—This revision petition has been filed by the petitioner/ complainant Satya Narayan Adhikari, against the order dated 28.4.2011 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Orissa, (in short 'the State Commission'), passed in FA No. 322 of 2009.

2. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.6.2004, the complainant revisionist purchased TATA Indica Car vide invoice No. SB ML/INB/B HM/35; from Shree Bharat Motors Ltd., Gopalpur Junction, Berhampur Ganjam for a consideration of Rs. 3,65,780. The revisionist got his car financed from the respondent company and made a down payment of Rs. 30,780 and issued thirty-five post-dated cheques in favour of the respondent No. 1 for repaying the loan in equal monthly instalments of Rs. 11,151 each. As per version of the revisionist, till 1.10.2006, the revisionist has made total payment of Rs. 3,13,775 in the shape of cheques and drafts and cash. On 4.1.2007, after returning from Aska, the car was parked at Bijipur Junction of Berhampur at 2 p.m. and the driver was taking his lunch, the respondent through their musclemen took forceful possession of the vehicle. On 7.6.2004, the revisionist filed a complaint C.D. 85/2007 before the Ganjam District Consumer Redressal For um, Ganjam, (in short "the District Forum"). On 18.3.2009, the District Forum, directed the respondent to deliver back possession of the vehicle to the complainant with compensation of Rs. 20,000.

3. On 16.4.2009, the respondents filed appeal No. 322/2009 before the State Commission. The State Commission vide its order dated 25.6.2009 set aside the order of the District Forum by observing that the complainant selected one Forum and after losing in the said Forum came to the Consumer Forum. On 30.7.2009, the revisionist moved this Commission in Revision Petition No. 3169/ 2009 against the order of the State Commission. On 5.4.2010, the National Commission set aside the order of the State Commission by observing that the scope of inquiry before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur in Criminal Proceeding and the scope of inquiry - before the District Forum are entirely different and directed parties to appear before the State Forum on 8.7.2010. On 2.8.2010, the matter was fixed for hearing on point of admission. The revisionist disputed admission of the appeal on the ground of non-compliance of second proviso to Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act or deficit amount of Rupees Ten Thousand deposited instead of Rupees Twenty Five Thousand for purpose of admission of appeal but the State Commission admitted the appeal. The State Commission vide its order dated 28.4.2011 allowed the appeal and dismissed the complaint.

4. Hence the Revision Petition.

5. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused record.

6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the State Commission has not appreciated the fact that the complainant had already paid Rs. 3,13,775 out of the total loan amount. The District Forum has analysed alt the aspects of the case and ordered the opposite and to pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000. However, the State Commission allowed the appeal only on the ground that the respondent was entitled to repossess the vehicle, if the petitioner was in default. The State Commission has relied on the judgment of National Commission in the case of Surendra Kumar Agarwal v. Telco Finance Limited & Anr., II (2010) CPJ 163 (NC), which is not applicable in the present case. Learned Counsel emphasised that no notice was served on the complainant before the re-possession or before the sale of the said vehicle. It was, also mentioned that the arbitration proceedings were initiated in the year 2009 during pendency of the complaint and the fact of arbitration proceedings was not disclosed before the District Forum or the State Commission. In support of his arguments, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied on judgment of this Commission, in Magma Leasing Limited v. Prasan