Proper notice and procedures must be followed in vehicle seizure to avoid unfair trade practices under consumer protection laws.

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioners against order dated 31.10.2011 of the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (for short "State Commission") in FA.3.2011 wherein the Appeal filed by the Petitioners was dismissed.

2. Case of the Complainant is that the Complainant purchased a ten - wheeler truck of Ashok Leyland Ltd. bearing registration No. WB29/6162, chassis No. WDE - 545847, and engine No. DWE 406960 financed by OP No. 1 through OP No. 2. The Complainant entered into an agreement with OP No. 1 and accordingly OP Nos. 1 and 2 sanctioned a loan of Rs.9,15,000. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement, the Complainant deposited a sum of Rs.82,687 with Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 as margin money. The Complainant was supposed to repay a sum of Rs.11,57,700 in 47 instalments @ Rs.24,720 w.e.f. 24.2.2005. Thereafter, when it came to the notice of the Complainant that the Registration Certificate bore the name of Opposite Party No. 3 as a joint registered owner, on enquiry, Opposite Party No. 3 informed him that he had incurred an expenditure of Rs.45,000 from his own pocket in order to get the loan sanctioned in favour of the Complainant and as and when the Complainant would repay the same, he would take necessary steps to remove his name from the Registration Certificate. Later, although the Complainant paid Rs.45,000 to Opposite Party No. 3 in two instalments, Opposite Party No. 3 took no steps to delete his name from the Registration Certificate. On 5.4.2008, Opposite Party No. 3 detained the vehicle by force and removed its tyres to render it defunct. According to the Complainant, Opposite Parties, in collusion with each other, seized the vehicle on 1.5.2008. On 1.5.2008, Opposite Party No. 2 sent a letter to the Complainant to repay Rs.1,05,000, although the Complainant did not owe any money to Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2. Complainant had so far paid Rs.10,27,610 to Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2. A sum of Rs.40,000 which the Complainant got as accident claim on 27.9.2006, had already been adjusted against his loan by Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2. Complainant sent a legal notice to Opposite Party No. 2 on 23.8.2008, but he did not receive any reply. In view of the above, the Complainant filed a Complaint before the District Forum with the following prayer:
"1. O.P. Nos. 1 and 2 should be directed to return the truck to the complainant in a moveable condition.
2. The complainant should be given at least a six months time to repay the left over amount of loan, towards O.P. No. 1 and 2.
3. O.P. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 should be directed to pay Rs.5 lacs as compensation as the complainant has lost Rs.50,000 per month when the vehicle was seized.
4. O.P. No. 3 should be directed to transfer his co - ownership, regarding the vehicle completely in the name of the complainant.
5. To direct the O.P. Nos. 1, 2 and 3 to pay Rs.1 lac as compensation for causing harassment and mental agony.
6. and to pass such further order or orders as your Honour may deem fit and proper."

3. The case was contested by OP No. 2 who denied all the allegations of the Complainant. It was stated that out of the 47 installments, the Complainant paid only 37 installments and the remaining installments had not been paid. The Complainant paid only Rs.9,11,400 out of a total amount of Rs.11,57,700. The Complainant owed Rs.3,71,096 towards loan repayment and despite reminders had not cleared his dues. According to the terms and conditions of the agreement, Opposite Party Nos.1