IMPORTANT POINT
Repossession – Merely because the OP-1 Bank had repossessed the vehicle due to repeated defaults of EMIs without giving due notice to the Complainant, the Complainant is not absolved of his liability towards the Bank for the vehicle’s loan as per the Agreement dated 05.11.2005.

ORDER

The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Section -58(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (the “Act”) against impugned order dated 22.09.2021 of the learned State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, UP at Lucknow (‘the State Commission’) in First Appeal No. 1911 of 2010, wherein the Appeal filed by the Complainant was partly allowed upholding the Order dated 06.10.2010 passed by the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Kanpur Nagar (“District Forum”) in CC No.238 of 2008, with some modification.

2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as in the original Complaint before the District Forum. Syed Mushir Abbas is referred to as the Complainant (Respondent No. 1), HDFC Bank Ltd. is referred to as the Petitioner (OP-1), Allahabad Automobiles Garage is referred to as the Respondent No. 2 (OP-2) and Jamuna Motors is referred to as the Respondent No. 3 (OP-3).

3. Brief facts of the case, as per the Complainant, are that on 11.02.2005, the Complainant purchased Truck No-UP-78-AN/ 0529 from Amar Nath for Rs.4,45,000, with Rs.1,02,000 paid in cash and Rs.3,43,000 through a financial loan from OP-3. The OP-3, acting as the financier, offered his surety and facilitated the loan from OP-1. Thus, on 18.10.2005, OP-3’s name was replaced by OP-1 as the financier in the Divisional Transport Office, with 23 postdated cheques returned to OP-1. The Complainant discharged the entire amount owed to both OP-1 and OP-3. However, despite making full payment, OP-3 forcibly repossessed the truck on 28.04.2008, at Govt Press Square, Civil Lines, as it transported goods from Gujarat to Allahabad via OP-2. This action disrupted the Complainant’s freight operations, prompting a police report. Despite legal notice, no resolution was achieved. On 28.04.2006, OP-2 repossessed the vehicle citing an outstanding balance of Rs.60,000, a sum not owed by him OP-1 or OP-3. The cause of action arose from illegal seizure of the truck. Aggrieved, the Complainant filed Consumer Complaint No. 238/2008 before the District Forum against the OPs, seeking return of the truck or its value of Rs.4,45,000, Rs.6,60,000 as damages from 28.04.2006 to 27.02.2008 at Rs.30,000 per month, Rs.2,00,000 for mental agony, and various other expenses.

4. Despite adequate service, the OPs did not appear before the District Forum and thus, they were proceeded ex-parte.

5. The District Forum in its Order dated 06.10.2010, partly allowed the complaint with the following order:—

“….. Therefore, on the basis of the evidence available in the record, the Forum comes to the conclusion that the accused No. 3 has illegally taken possession of the truck in question. In such a situation, the complainant is entitled to get back the truck in question. The complainant is entitled to receive Rs.10,000.00 or more from the Opposite Party No. 3 as compensation on account of illegal possession of the truck by Opposite Party No.3.

On the basis of the above, the Forum comes to the conclusion that the suit presented by the complainant is admissible against the Opposite Parties.

Order

Due to the above reasons, the memorandum presented by the complainant is accepted against the Opposite Parties and is directed to the Opposite Party no.3 that the truck No- UP-7A N/0529 should be returned to the complainant in working condition within 30 days of the decision. Simultaneously, Opposite Party No. 3 is also directed to pay Rs.1000.00 as compensation to the complainant within the said time. (Extracted from True Translated Copy)

6. Dissatisfied with the District forum order, the Complainant filed FA No. 1911 of 2010 before the State Commission contending that the District Forum’s decision was partly erroneous due to the failure to hold Respondent No. 1 accountable. There was an oversight in comprehending that the truck was not in a returnable state. Thus, instead of instructing Respondent No. 3 to return the truck, an order should have been for payment