IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) High Courts deprecated practice of taking forcible possession of hypothecated vehicles by financers and granted relief against forcible possession.
(2) Admittedly, no prior notice of min. 60 days given by Petitioner/financer to the Respondent/complainant before taking possession of the tractor.

ORDER

Heard Mr. Varun Dev Mishra, Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. Anjan Sinha, Advocate, for respondent-1.

2. This revision has been filed against the order of State Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, West Bengal, dated 16.03.2020, passed in First Appeal No. 5 of 2018, (arising out of the order of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoogly, dated 25.10.2017, passed in Consumer Complaint No. 182 of 2014), whereby District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, has allowed the complaint, directed the petitioner to return the tractor to the complainant with all accessories in good condition, to pay Rs.5,00,000/- towards compensation and Rs.10,000/- as the cost and the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed.

3. The office has reported that the revision has been filed with delay of 296 days. Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020, by orders dated 23.03.2020, 08.03.2021 and 27.04.2021, has directed to exclude the limitation after 15.03.2020. As such the delay in filing the revision is condoned.

4. Nikhil Patra (respondent-1) filed Consumer Complaint No. 182 of 2014, against Shriram Transport Finance Company Limited, (the petitioner) (hereinafter referred to as the financer) and Sri Arun Ghosh (the dealer of the tractor) for (i) return of the tractor, (ii) to pay Rs.5,00,000/- as the financial loss and for mental harassment and (iii) any other relief for which he was entitled. It has been stated in the complaint that the complainant had purchased a tractor, i.e. Power Track Tractor, Model 409 and registration No. WB-15 A-1544 (hereinafter referred to as the vehicle) from Soket Motors (opposite party-1), for Rs.4,86,000/- on 25.10.2010. The complainant paid Rs.1,86,000/- and the petitioner financed Rs.3,00,000/-. Loan was payable in 55 monthly instalments of Rs.9,855/-, i.e. up to 20.04.2015. The complainant paid monthly instalments regularly up to May, 2012. However, due to financial problem and the illness of his wife, the complainant committed default in payment of 3 instalments. The financer, through their muscle men, took forcible possession of the tractor on 01.08.2012. The financer did not give any prior notice for taking possession of the tractor. The complainant visited to the branch office of financer at Padua and prayed to release the tractor. Then he asked the petitioner to deposit Rs.40,000/-. The complainant managed the aforesaid amount and went to the branch office for deposit of that amount, then demand was enhanced to Rs.50,000/, thereafter to Rs.60,000/- and Rs.1,20,000/-. The tractor was source of earning of the family of the complainant. Due to taking illegal possession of the tractor, the complainant was deprived of his livelihood. The complainant gave legal notice dated 24.01.2014 but the financer did not responded. On these allegations, the complaint was filed.

5. The financer contested the case and filed their written reply. They admitted that they had advanced loan amount of Rs.3,00,000/- through Loan Cum Hypothecation Agreement dated 15.10.2010, for purchasing aforesaid tractor, which was duly signed by the complainant and his guarantor. It has been stated that the complainant initially paid some instalments but later on he committed default in payment of the instalments. In spite of repeated demands and reminders, when the complainant did not respondent, then the tractor was repossessed in terms of the agreement, to safeguard in the interest of the financer. The complainant was not entitled for any relief. Preliminary objections relating to territorial jurisdiction of District Forum and maintainability of complaint have also been raised.

6. District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Hoogly, by its judgment dated 25.10.2017, found that the complainant was paying instalments regularly up to 22.05.2015 and paid total Rs.3,45,000/- till then. Due to illness of his wife, the complainant could not pay the instalment after May, 2012. However, without any notice, the tract