ORDER

The present Appeal is filed by the Appellant/Complainant against the order dated 27.03.2014 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (in short ‘State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No.58/2002, whereby the Consumer Complaint filed by the Complainant/Appellant was dismissed.

2. The Appeal has been filed with a delay of 2 days. The Appellant has not filed an application for condonation of delay. However, in the interest of justice, delay is condoned.

3. The Complainant is a registered charitable trust working in the field of education having its shops at Pune, Mumbai and Ahmednagar. The Complainant was having a scheme of operating a motor vehicle for carrying books from one place to another with the intention to make the books available at remote places in Maharashtra. The Opposite Party is a finance Company.

4. The Case of the Complainant/Appellant is that they purchased a Eicher Canter for which a loan of Rs.3,54,000/- was taken from the Opposite Party, vide loan agreement dated 15.02.2000. The Complainant got the van converted into a “Book Mobile” for which an amount of Rs.4,66,559/- was incurred. On 9th May, 2000 the vehicle was set on fire by the mob at village Abhona, Taluka Kalwan, District Nashik, Maharashtra. The vehicle was got repaired for which the Complainant incurred Rs.94,249/-. The Complainant submitted the claim with the Opposite Party. On 03.07.2000, the Complainant sent a letter to the Opposite Party requesting to adjust the claim amount towards the installments. The Complainant also intimated the Opposite Party that if there was delay in settlement of insurance claim, they would delay in repayment of loan installments. Since the Opposite Party delayed in settling the insurance claim, the Complainant stopped paying the loan installments. On 20.12.2000, when the vehicle was at the signal of Mangalwar Peth, Juna Bazar Chowk, the Opposite Party forcibly took possession of the vehicle. The driver was also forced to sign some documents. At the time of seizure, the vehicle had stock of Rs.1,73,469.79. On 12.03.2001, the Opposite Party informed the complainant that the insurance claim had been settled at Rs.48,920/- and the settlement amount had been adjusted towards the installments due. The Opposite Party, vide letter dated 10.09.2001, informed the Complainant that the vehicle had been sold at Rs.3,33,920/-. The cost of the book mobile was Rs.9,71,046/- and the Opposite Party sold it at Rs.3,33,920/- at a loss of Rs.6,37,126/-. Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission with the following prayer: -

“(a) The opposite party may be ordered to pay loss of Rs.6,37,126/- caused being the price difference of the actual cost of the book mobile & the price opponent sold it.

(b) The opponent may be directed to pay loss of Rs.1000/- per day caused because of illegal seizure of the book mobile resulting into stoppage of educational book tours & distribution of literature from 20/12/2000.

(c) The opponent may be ordered to pay damages of Rs.45,329/- to the applicant for loss caused in insurance claim.

(d) The opponent may be directed to pay damages of Rs.32,000/- for withholding the stock without any authority.

(e) The opponent may be directed to pay damages of Rs.50,000/- for the mental harassment & agony caused to the applicant due to the wrongful and & deeds of the opponent.

(f) Any other order in the interest of the justice may be passed.

5. The Complaint was resisted by the Opposite Party by filing the written statement primarily on the ground that the Complainant was not a “Consumer” under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On merit, the Opposite Party stated that the Appellant violated the terms & conditions of the loan agreement and stopped paying the loan installments from July, 2000. The Opposite Party sent notice dated 23.12.2000 to the