The unilateral repossession of a financed vehicle by a financer without providing prior notice and an opportunity to be heard violates the principles of natural justice and constitutes deficiency in service and unfair trade practice under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.

ORDER

(Delivered on 26/11/2025)

PER MS. S.D. WANDHARE , HON’BLE MEMBER.

1. The appellant/original complainant namely Anil Nagorao Dadamal has preferred the present appeal under Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 challenging the order passed on 01/04/2016 in Consumer Complaint No.CC/176/2011 (hereinafter it is referred to in short as “impugned order”) of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandrapur (hereinafter it is referred to in short as “learned District Forum”) by which the complaint filed by appellant being complainant came to be dismissed.

The parties of the appeal are hereinafter referred to by their original nomenclature as complainant and opposite parties respectively for better appreciation.

2 The facts that emerge from the original complaint are that the complainant chose a Tata Sumo Victa car of Tata Motors for purchase and submitted a quotation through Opposite Party (O.P.) No.3, who acted as his representative. A loan of Rs.1,51,000/- was deposited on 25/10/2008 for the car, but no receipt was given at that time. Later, receipts of Rs.1,19,300/- dated 27/10/2008 and Rs.10,500/- dated 14/11/2008 were provided. The total cost of the car was stated to be Rs.5,84,130/- and a loan of Rs.4,40,000/- was sanctioned through a loan agreement. The complainant then took possession of the Tata Sumo Victa with registration MH-31-CR-7916. On receiving the car, he found that it had already been driven for 1018 km. The complainant sought clarification from O.P. Nos.3 and 4 but was misled. He paid the loan regularly, but the O.P. charged interest at a rate different from what was agreed. Without any notice or demand, O.P. Nos.1 to 4 broke the lock and took back the car from the complainant’s house. On 16/01/2010, he asked for the loan account statement and outstanding amount, but the O.P. refused and demanded Rs.91,534/-, which he paid on 25/01/2010 while requesting the car. Instead, payment of Rs.13,500/- made on 15/02/2010, the complainant did not get the vehicle in delivery. On 28/06/2010, the O.P. demanded more money and the car was sold to another person without informing the complainant. The complainant claims this conduct was illegal, misleading and caused him mental and physical suffering. So, the complainant filed the consumer complaint seeking return of the car in good condition or a new car at the same price, refund of excess interest with 15% interest, or alternatively Rs.2,19,500/- with 15% interest and current market value, along with compensation for his suffering and the costs of the complaint.

3 The Opposite Parties (O.P.) No.1 resisted the claim before the learned District Forum and denied all the allegations made against them by the complainant. They contended that the complaint does not constitute a consumer dispute and therefore it does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Consumer Forum. They further stated that there exists a finance-related agreement only between the complainant and O.P.No.2, in which they have no involvement. They also clarified that the disputed vehicle was sold by O.P. No.1 to O.P. No.3, who later sold it to the complainant and as such, there was no direct agreement between O.P. No.1 and the complainant. They further contended that none of the Opposite Parties have a business branch or conduct business in Chandrapur and the dispute raised is essentially civil in nature. Therefore, they prayed to dismiss the complaint with costs.

4 The O.P. No.2 resisted the claim before the learned District Forum and contended that the allegations in the complaint are false and unfounded. They stated that the disputed vehicle was borrowed by the complainant under a valid agreement between the parties which clearly sets out the rights and obligations of both sides. They referred to Paragraph No.9 of Agreement No.125973 which expr