Deficiency in service occurs when repossession is conducted unlawfully without proper notice, violating consumer protection laws.

1. The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner / Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 in the Complaint (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Finance Company") under S.21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short "the Act") against the Order dated 28.11.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh at Luck now (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal Nos. 1328 of 2015 and 1617 of 2015. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission while affirming the finding of facts returned by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Allahabad (for short, "the District Forum") had dismissed both the First Appeals preferred by the Complainant as well as Petitioner herein. The District Forum vide its Order dated 22.5.2015 had partly allowed the Complaint filed by the Complainant and had directed the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2 / Petitioner herein to pay an amount of Rs.3,25,000, the value of the vehicle in question to the Complainant along with interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of Complaint till the date of actual payment. The Complainant was also awarded Rs.50,000 as compensation and Rs.5,000 as costs of the litigation.

2. At the outset, it may be noted that this is a second round of litigation. In the first round of litigation, the Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties alleging deficiency in service was dismissed by the District Forum vide Order dated 11.6.2007 holding that the Complainant was not a "Consumer" as defined under S.2(1)(d) of the Act, as the vehicle in question was purchased for commercial purposes. The said Order was challenged by the Complainant before the State Commission by filing First Appeal No. 533 of 2008 which was allowed by it vide Order dated 2.1.2013. The State Commission reached at the conclusion that the vehicle was purchased by the Complainant only for earning her livelihood and accordingly, the matter was remanded back to the District Forum to decide the case afresh after due appreciation of the evidence led by the parties.

3. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the Complaint are that the Complainant had purchased Tata SPCO bearing registration No. UP 70 U - 8552 after availing the loan facility from the Opposite Party No. 2, the Branch of the Opposite Party No. 1, Finance Company. The total costs of the vehicle was Rs.4,07,000 out of which the Complainant paid an amount of Rs.1,37,000 in cash and the balance amount of Rs.2,70,000 was financed by the Opposite Party No. 2. The Complainant took physical possession of the vehicle on 23.8.2001. The loan amount was to be repaid by the Complainant to the Finance Company in 37 equated monthly instalment @ Rs.8,986. It is averred that the Complainant had paid 34 instalments regularly to the Opposite Party No. 2, however, remaining instalments could not be paid by the Complainant to them due to ill - health and financial constraints. The Complainant also informed the same to the Opposite Parties orally and in writing. According to the Complainant, on 15.1.2005, 4 to 5 persons of the Opposite Party No. 3 forcefully re - possessed the vehicle due to non - payment of instalments even without issuing any notice to her and the vehicle was kept in their garage. Subsequently, Complainant had deposited the balance amount of the entire loan to the Opposite Party on 25.1.2005 including Rs.6,000 for seizure charges and additional DPC charges on 23.9.2005. Hence, on 22.5.2006, the Opposite Party Finance Company had issued "No Objection Certificate" to the Complainant. However, when the Complainant approached to the Opposite Party No. 3 to take the delivery of the vehicle, the Opposite Party No. 3 refused to deliv