IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Automobile – Manufacturing defect – Mere fact that truck was purchased for earning livelihood through self-employment does not exclude complainant from definition of ‘consumer’.
(2) Seizure of vehicle without issuance of prior notice to complainant and its sale without informing him of date, process, or proceeds constitutes not only an arbitrary act but also violation of fair contractual obligations.

ORDER

Dr. Sadhna Shanker, Member—This revision petition under section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 (in short, the ‘Act’) assails the order dated 22.12.2022 in first appeal I No.583 of 2006 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (in short, the ‘State Commission’) vide which the appeal of the respondent/opposite party was allowed and the Order dated 16.02.2006 of the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum (in short, the ‘District Forum’) in Consumer Complaint No.152 of 2003 was set aside.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the ‘complainant’) and learned counsel for the respondent No.1 and perused the record. Respondent No.2 was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 06.01.2025.

3. The brief facts of the case are that on 08/12/1999, the complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,62,770/- to the respondent No.1 towards the purchase of a truck bearing Registration No.MH-07-643. The respondent No.1 is the manufacturer of the said vehicle while the opposite party No.2 is its authorized dealer. The total cost of the truck was Rs.6,77,665/-. The balance amount was financed by respondent No.1 and a Hire Purchase Agreement was accordingly executed between the complainant and respondent No.1. Subsequently, the complainant took delivery of the truck (model 407) and arranged for a bodybuilder to construct the vehicle body, which was duly completed and handed over. It is alleged that respondent No.2 charged an additional amount of ?12,105/- for the installation of a hydraulic kit. Under the terms of the financing arrangement, the complainant was liable to pay the balance in 34 monthly instalments. It is contended that the complainant paid a total of ?4,97,921/- to respondent No.1 under the said Hire Purchase Agreement. The respondents also provided a warranty for a period of 18 months. However, the complainant claimed that the vehicle was delivered with multiple defects, including a malfunctioning radiator and faulty brake system. Despite several attempts to have the truck repaired, including sending it for service on multiple occasions, the respondent No.2 failed to carry out the necessary repairs for a period exceeding four to five months. This was in spite of written communications from the complainant dated 28/08/2000 and 14/09/2000. It was further alleged that due to the non-functionality of the truck, the complainant was unable to make timely repayments of the loan instalments. Although the defects became apparent during the warranty period, the respondents failed to rectify the issues adequately. On 13/12/2002, the complainant made a payment of Rs.25,000/- towards the loan instalments. Thereafter, on 15/12/2002, When the vehicle in question was parked at Village Kasardi, in front of Konkan Transport Company, officers of respondent No.1 allegedly seized the truck illegally and forcibly, without issuing any prior notice. A complaint was lodged at Kankavali Police Station; however, no action was taken by the police authorities. The complainant contended that the act of seizure constitutes an unfair trade practice on the part of the respondent. As a result of the seizure, the complainant lost his source of livelihood. The complainant was later informed by the Regional Transport Office (RTO) that the truck had been sold and transferred to another individual. It is further alleged that the complainant was neither informed of the auction nor thesubsequent sale of the vehicle by the respondents. Accordingly, the complainant has filed a complaint before the District Commission.

4. The District Forum vide its order on 16.2.2006 allowed the complaint and directed the respondents to pay Rs.6,60,691/- at the rate of 9% p.a. and Rs.20,000/- as compensation and further awarded an amount of Rs.5,000/- as litigation expenses.

5. Aggrieved by the District Forum’s order, the respondents filed an appeal before the State Commission.

6. The State Commission, by its judgment dated