1.       The present Appeal is filed by the Appellant/Complainant against the order dated 27.03.2014 passed by State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (in short ‘State Commission’) in Consumer Complaint No.58/2002, whereby the Consumer Complaint filed by the Complainant/Appellant was dismissed.

2.       The Appeal has been filed with a delay of 2 days. The Appellant has not filed an application for condonation of delay. However, in the interest of justice, delay is condoned.

3.       The Complainant is a registered charitable trust working in the field of education having its shops at Pune, Mumbai and Ahmednagar. The Complainant was having a scheme of operating a motor vehicle for carrying books from one place to another with the intention to make the books available at remote places in Maharashtra. The Opposite Party is a finance Company.

4.       The Case of the Complainant/Appellant is that they purchased a Eicher Canter for which a loan of Rs.3,54,000/- was taken from the Opposite Party, vide loan agreement dated 15.02.2000. The Complainant got the van converted into a “Book Mobile” for which an amount of Rs.4,66,559/- was incurred. On 9^th May, 2000 the vehicle was set on fire by the mob at village Abhona, Taluka Kalwan, District Nashik, Maharashtra. The vehicle was got repaired for which the Complainant incurred Rs.94,249/-. The Complainant submitted the claim with the Opposite Party. On 03.07.2000, the Complainant sent a letter to the Opposite Party requesting to adjust the claim amount towards the installments. The Complainant also intimated the Opposite Party that if there was delay in settlement of insurance claim, they would delay in repayment of loan installments. Since the Opposite Party delayed in settling the insurance claim, the Complainant stopped paying the loan installments. On 20.12.2000, when the vehicle was at the signal of Mangalwar Peth, Juna Bazar Chowk, the Opposite Party forcibly took possession of the vehicle. The driver was also forced to sign some documents. At the time of seizure, the vehicle had stock of Rs.1,73,469.79. On 12.03.2001, the Opposite Party informed the complainant that the insurance claim had been settled at Rs.48,920/- and the settlement amount had been adjusted towards the installments due. The Opposite Party, vide letter dated 10.09.2001, informed the Complainant that the vehicle had been sold at Rs.3,33,920/-. The cost of the book mobile was Rs.9,71,046/- and the Opposite Party sold it at Rs.3,33,920/- at a loss of Rs.6,37,126/-.  Alleging deficiency in service and unfair trade practice on the part of the Opposite Party, the Complainant filed a Consumer Complaint before the State Commission with the following prayer: -

“a)    The opposite party may be ordered to pay loss of Rs.6,37,126/- caused being the price difference of the actual cost of the book mobile & the price opponent sold it.

b)      The opponent may be directed to pay loss of Rs.1000/- per day caused because of illegal seizure of the book mobile resulting into stoppage of educational book tours & distribution of literature from 20/12/2000.

c)       The opponent may be ordered to pay damages of Rs.45,329/- to the applicant for loss caused in insurance claim.

d)      The opponent may be directed to pay damages of Rs.32,000/- for withholding the stock without any authority.

e)       The opponent may be directed to pay damages of Rs.50,000/- for the mental harassment & agony caused to the applicant due to the wrongful and & deeds of the opponent.

f)       Any other order in the interest of the justice may be passed.

 5.      The Complaint was resisted by the Opposite Party by filing the written statement primarily on the ground that the Complainant was not a “Consumer” under Section 2 (1) (d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On merit, the Opposite Party stated that the Appellant violated the terms & conditions of the loan agreement and stopped paying the loan installments from July, 2000. The Opposite Party sent notice dated 23.12.2000 to the Complainant intimating to regularize the loan account failing which the vehicle would be repossessed and sold for adjustment of outstanding dues. In compliance of the said notice, the Opposite Party asked the Complainant to surrender the vehicle which the Complainant did through its driver. Further, the Opposite Party, vide letters 02.01.2001 and 03.01.2000, requested the Complainant to offload the inventories in the vehicle at the earliest, which the Complainant failed to do. The Opposite Party, therefore, sold the vehicle and the amount was adjusted towards the loan amount.

6.       The State Commission after hearing the Learned Counsel for the Parties and perusing the record, dismissed the Complaint. Aggrieved by dismissal of the Complaint, the Complainant has filed the instant First Appeal with the following prayer: -

1. That this Hon’ble commission be pleased to allow the appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.3.2014 passed by the Maharashtra State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Mumbai in Consumer Case No.CC/02/58.

2. For such other and further relief as this Hon’ble Commission may deem fit and proper.

7.       Heard the Learned Counsel for the Parties and carefully perused the record. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that on 09.05.2000, the van was robbed, due to which the Appellant could not pay the installments of loan. When the van was parked at Mangalwar Peth, Pune, the Opposite Party possessed it without any notice.  The State Commission dismissed the Complaint on the ground that the Complainant defaulted in repayment of the loan installment. The State Commission failed to consider the fact that the Opposite Party possessed and sold the vehicle without notice to the Complainant. The State Commission also ignored the fact that the Opposite Party settled the claim at Rs.48,920/- while the claim was for Rs.94,249/-.

8.       Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that since the Complainant defaulted in payment of loan installment, the Opposite Party asked them to surrender the vehicle and the Complainant surrendered the vehicle themselves through the driver. The Opposite Party asked the Complainant to take back the stock from the vehicle, which they failed to do. He submitted that there is no evidence on record, except the statement of the driver, to show that the vehicle was forcibly taken by the Opposite Party. It was also submitted that the Insurance Policy was issued by the National Insurance Company and not the Respondent/Opposite Party. If the Complainant had any grievance about delay in settlement of the insurance claim, they could have filed appropriate proceedings against the Insurance Company. The Complainant could not clear the outstanding dues even after expiry of four months of taking the vehicle.

9.       Facts of the case are that the Complainant purchased a Eicher Canter for which a loan of Rs.3,54,000/- was taken from the Opposite Party, vide loan agreement dated 15.02.2000. On 9^th May, 2000 the vehicle was set on fire by the mob at village Abhona, Taluka Kalwan, District  Nashik, Maharashtra. The vehicle was got repaired for which the Complainant incurred Rs.94,249/-. The Complainant submitted the claim with the Opposite Party. On 03.07.2000, the Complainant sent a letter to the Opposite Party requesting to adjust the claim amount towards the installments. Since there was delay in settling the insurance claim, the Complainant stopped paying the loan installments.

10.     The main issue is whether the Opposite Party was justified in repossession and auction of the vehicle for realization of the loan amount. On 09.05.2000, the vehicle was damaged in a mob attack. The Complainant spent an amount of Rs.94,249/- on repairs of the vehicle. In para 4 of the Complaint, the Complainant stated that, vide letter dated 03.07.2000, they requested the Opposite Party that “if there is delay in settling the insurance claim on the part of the opponent, it may cause back log in the payments of installments. In spite of this the opponent did not expedite the insurance claim. The applicant again informed the opponent vide its letter dated 2^nd September 2000 & strongly protested their unhappiness over delay caused by the opponent on the matter of settling the insurance claim.” It is not disputed by the Complainant that the vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Company. The Opposite Party was not responsible for any delay in settlement of the Insurance claim. Due to delay in settlement of insurance claim, the Complainant stopped paying loan instalments from July, 2000 onwards. On 23.12.2000, the Opposite Party sent notice to the Complainant for payment of outstanding amount. Again on 03.01.2001, the Opposite Party sent a notice for payment of outstanding amount. Despite two notices, the Complainant did not make payment of the outstanding amount. In this regard, the State Commission observed that “in the fact of admission that installments had not been paid in time, there was nothing wrong in taking possession of the vehicle by the Opponent.”  We find no reason not to agree with the finding of the State Commission.

11.     Regarding auction of the vehicle without notice to the Complainant, the State Commission observed that “there is absolutely nothing to show that the vehicle was improperly auctioned. It was auctioned after the period of four months from seizure. Had the Complainant desired, the Complainant could have paid the amount due and avoided the auction.”  Complainant admitted that they defaulted in payment of loan instalment, due to which the Opposite Party took possession of the vehicle. Even after taking the vehicle due to default in EMI, the Complainant did not bother to clear the outstanding dues. The Complainant cannot take the benefit of its own wrong.

12.     The Complainant also alleged that the Opposite Party auctioned the vehicle at Rs.3,33,920/-, much lower than the actual price. It is Complainant’s own admission that the vehicle was set at fire by mob in Nasik District and suffered substantial loss. After repair of the vehicle, it could not have fetched the price of a new vehicle. The argument is, therefore, not accepted.

13.     It is alleged by the Opposite Party that the Complainant stopped paying instalments from July, 2000 onwards. The Opposite Party, vide letter dated 10.09.2001, informed the Complainant that the vehicle had been sold.  From July, 2000 till September, 2001 i.e. for 14 months, the Complainant did not pay any loan instalment.  The Opposite Party was, therefore, compelled to auction the vehicle and appreciate the loan amount.

14.     Regarding seizure of vehicle, there is no evidence except the statement of the driver that the Opposite Party forcefully possessed by the Opposite Party. State Commission observed that “the best person to depose about the manner in which the vehicle was seized was obviously the driver and we have not been able to locate any affidavit of driver. Therefore, there is nothing to show that the vehicle was illegally seized by the Opponent.” Even in the Appeal, the Complainant had not deposed the manner in which the vehicle was allegedly possessed nor any other evidence has been filed by the Complainant. In absence of any evidence, we are unable to agree with the contention of the Complainant that the vehicle was forcefully and illegally possessed by the Opposite Party.  

15.     In view of the above, we find that the State Commission has given a detailed and well-reasoned order. The Appellant failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference in Appellate jurisdiction. The Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.