ORDER

(Delivered on 20/03/2026)

PER HON'BLE MS. SHAILA D. WANDHARE, MEMBER

01. This is an appeal preferred by the original complainant, Shankar Dattatray Shatpalkae, being aggrieved by the order passed on 14/05/2018 of the learned District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Chandrapur (for short as “learned District Forum”) in Consumer Complaint No.137/2016, vide Section 15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

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

03. The facts that emerge from the original complaint are that the Truck bearing No.MH-34-AV-8199 purchased by the complainant for self-earning after obtaining a loan of Rs.26,00,000/- from the opposite parties who is engaged in the business of vehicle finance. The complainant agreed to repay the loan in monthly installments of Rs.58,500/- till August 2016 and had already paid Rs.25,53,334/- by 30/01/2016 including the interest and only Rs.46,666/- remaining to be paid in the next two months. However, on 18/10/2016, the O.P. without any written notice illegally seized the said truck from the complainant’s house with the help of gundas. The complainant stated that such forcible seizure without due process amounted to unfair trade practice and deficiency in service. It was alleged that while granting the loan, the opposite party took the complainant’s signatures at several places but did not provide a copy of the loan agreement. The complainant stated that the loan of Rs.20,00,000/- was repayable with Rs.26,00,000/- including Rs.6,00,000/- interest, with extra interest and penalty was unfair. Hence, the complainant filed a consumer complaint for deficiency in service along with compensation and costs.

04. The respondents/original opposite parties (O.P.) have resisted the claim before the learned District Forum and denied the contention on the ground that the complainant does not fall within the definition of a “consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act as both parties are businessmen and the transaction was purely commercial. It was also contended that the complainant failed to pay the loan installments within the stipulated period as per the agreement and since the truck was hypothecated, the complainant could not claim ownership until full repayment. Therefore, the O.P. lawfully seized the vehicle after default and such action did not amount to deficiency in service. The O.P. also stated that the complainant had paid Rs.23,25,100/- while Rs.2,94,904/- remained outstanding including Rs.2,74,904/- as balance loan and interest and Rs.20,000/- as seizure expenses. They further contended that there was no deficiency in service on their part as alleged by the complainant and therefore, appellant is not liable for compensation and cost. Thus, they prayed for to dismiss the complaint with cost.

05. After given consideration to the evidence of the parties and their documents filed in support thereof, learned District Forum by order dated 14/05/2018 dismissed the complaint for want of peculiar jurisdiction. Being aggrieved by said order of the learned District Forum, the present appeal preferred by the appellant vide Section15 of the Consumer Protection Act 1986.

06. We have heard the arguments of learned Advocate Shri. Abhay Kullurwar of appellant and learned Advocate Shri.Manish Meshram of the respondents. We have also considered the written notes of arguments filed by the learned Advocates of the respective parties. We have perused the record and proceeding of the present appeal also carefully gone through the material pointed out by the parties in support of their arguments.

07. On the rival contention of the parties, following points arise for our determination and we have recorded our findings against each of them as follows;