1. The Petitioner/Complainant purchased a truck in 2006 of Tata make bearing Registration No. CG046154 for which a loan of Rs.11 lakhs was negotiated between the Complainant and the Respondent Opposite Party on 27.02.2006. According to the Petitioner/Complainant, the loan was to be paid back along with interest to the tune of Rs.12,67,200/- the first instalment whereof was payable on 02.04.2006 and the loan was to be repaid within four years. According to the Complainant, during this period, the Complainant had paid almost 90% of the loan amount that is about Rs.10,86,839/- out of the total amount of Rs.12,67,200/-. The Complainant alleged that a sum of Rs.1,80,361/- was only left when suddenly without any notice the vehicle was repossessed by the Opposite Party on 29.06.2010 illegally that was laden with goods worth Rs.3,20,000/-. It is also urged that the vehicle was sold contrary to the terms of the agreement during the pendency of the complaint that was filed on 06.09.2010 being CC/387/2010.
2. Aggrieved by the alleged deficiency on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant claimed for a compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- as the price of the laden goods, together with Rs.1 lakh as loss compensation and Rs.10,000/- as costs. The Complainant was further amended claiming refund of Rs.10,86,839/- that had been paid by the Complainant towards the loan account on the ground that the vehicle had been illegally sold after repossession and therefore the said amount be refunded together with interest thereon coupled with other reliefs that were amended and incorporated in the complaint.
3. It is not in dispute that after repossession the vehicle was sold during the pendency of the complaint for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-.
4. The Complaint was dismissed on 19.01.2011 by the DCDRC, Raipur. Aggrieved, the Complainant filed FA/85/2011 that was allowed on 25.05.2011 and the order of the District Commission dated 06.09.2010 was set aside remanding the matter back for decision afresh after providing opportunity to lead evidence by the parties.
5. It may be mentioned that under the loan agreement, the financer had also invoked the arbitration clause for recovery of the amount due against the Complainant that was registered as Arbitration Case No.50/2011  and an award by the arbitrator was rendered on 29.06.2011 allowing the claim of the financer against the Complainant and his father for a sum of Rs.1,62,269/- coupled with interest thereon.
6. After remand before the District Commission, the matter was once again heard afresh and the Respondent Opposite Party took a plea that the vehicle had been repossessed in terms of Clause 18.1 of the conditions of loan and since the Complainant had defaulted in making payments, the repossession clause was rightly invoked and the vehicle was sold in order to realize the pending dues in terms of the hypothecation agreement. It was therefore a stand taken that the repossession did not suffer from any invalidity and secondly, the repossession had been undertaken after prior information to the Police Station Hanuman Tal, Jabalpur after following the due procedure of law and the post possession notice and information was also tendered in order to comply with the legal provisions. Consequently, the repossession of the vehicle was taken validly for which all these documents were available on record and it is only thereafter that the truck was put to auction and sold for a sum of Rs.3,50,000/-. The Respondent therefore attempted to justify its actions with the aid of all these submissions.
7. It was also alleged that no goods were found to be laden on the vehicle and it was empty which is also evident from the records of repossession duly intimated and confirmed by the Police.
8. On the other hand, the Complainant had relied on a receipt dated 05.07.2010 purporting to be a payment of Rs.3,20,000/- made by the Complainant to M/s Jabalpur Nagpur Goods Carrier in lieu of the loss of the goods loaded on the truck.
9. In addition thereto, the Complainant also filed all receipts pertaining to the payments and accounts to support the submission that almost 90% of the loan amount had been discharged as such the action of repossession was invalid and any consequential steps taken for its auction was in violation in terms of the agreement as well as the fact that the loan amount had been satisfied to the tune of 90%. The submission is that the repossession of the vehicle was an arm twisting tactics on the part of the financer who had no lien left on the vehicle.
10. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Rehman has urged that there is no proof of the service of notice of repossession on the Petitioners and these facts are required to be verified which has not been done either by the District Commission or by the State Commission and therefore the impugned order is vitiated for non-consideration of relevant material. He has urged that it is for this reason that the records of the District Commission are required to be summoned in order to establish the allegations regarding non-service of notice of repossession as well as the verification of the receipt deposits made by the Complainant in proof of the satisfaction of the loan. In essence the sale of the vehicle and its repossession, the loss of the loaded goods as well as the deposit of Rs.1,80,000/- before the District Commission for satisfaction of the balance amount have all been overlooked hence the impugned orders deserve to be set aside and the complaint deserves to be allowed.
11. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted that there is no ground taken or pleaded with regard to non-service of repossession notice or non-consideration of the relevant material and hence the arguments advanced on this count are absolutely untenable and cannot be appreciated. There is no illegality and irregularity in the orders passed by the Fora below who have recorded findings of fact after appreciating the evidence that was on record, more particularly the evidence in respect of the steps taken for repossession that has been discussed in detail by the District Commission in paragraph 8 of the conclusions drawn by it. The findings therefore recorded do not suffer from any infirmity on facts, much less in law.
12. At the outset, we may point out that there appears to have been an incorrect filing of the copy of the complaint and the written statement along with the Revision Petition which seems to have been filed in respect of CC/446/2014 that was in respect of some other vehicle. These facts were noticed and the Complainant Petitioner was called upon to file the correct documents that has been now filed along with the compilation dated 31.05.2024 along with IA/8826/2024.
13. We have perused the complaint, the written statement as well as the findings recorded in the impugned orders and we find that the main issue is with regard to the contest of the repossession of the vehicle by the Respondent/Opposite Party. The fact that there were dues against Petitioner is admitted by the Petitioner himself to the tune of Rs.1,80,360/- which according to the Complainant should be only to the tune of Rs.1,72,092/-. It is this amount which the Complainant was prepared to deposit but the fact remains that when the vehicle was repossessed on 29.06.2010, the said amount was due against the Complainant according to himself. As against this, the Respondent/Opposite Party had claimed that there were other amounts which were due against him including late fees, overdue amount, delay payment charges and other expenses. This was made subject matter of arbitration where an award is stated to have been made during the pendency of the complaint itself. We are however, not concerned with the outcome thereof or its status but the fact remains that the District Commission taking notice of the documents filed as Annexures R3, R4, R5, R6, R7, R8 & R9 came to the conclusion that the repossession proceedings were in accordance with law and that no goods worth Rs.3,20,000/- were found to be laden on the vehicle. It was held that no credible evidence was led by the Complainant to demonstrate the said loss had occurred when at the time of the repossession of the vehicle that was reported to the Police as well, did not indicate any such goods being loaded on the vehicle. This finding of fact therefore could not be upturned even before the State Commission as the receipt dated 05.07.2010 relied on by the Complainant did not seem to be indicating any such details of the value of the goods or otherwise. Thus, in the absence of any goods having been found loaded on the vehicle or even any detail inventory regarding the said goods, we cannot discard the factual finding recorded by the District Commission as affirmed by the State Commission on this issue as no further evidence is available to contradict the same.

14. Thus, on both counts it cannot be said that the repossession was attempted by the Opposite Party in violation of law or for no valid reason. Both the Fora below have therefore found the repossession to be valid and in the absence of any clinching or conclusive material to establish any loss of goods worth Rs.3,20,000/-, the Fora below have not committed any error much less an error on fact or in law to have rejected the contentions raised on behalf of the Complainant. We therefore find no justification to interfere with the impugned orders capable or for invoking the Revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission The Revision lacks merit and is accordingly rejected.