1.         The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioner against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21(b) of Consumer Protection Act 1986, against the order dated 12.10.2018 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, U.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 2674/2015 in which order dated 20.11.2015 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Gorakhpur (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 165/2015 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 12.10.2018 passed by the State Commission and dismiss the complaint of the complainant being CC/165/2015 qua the Petitioner.  

2.         While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as OP-1) was Appellant before the State Commission and OP-1 before the District Forum and Respondent-1 (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent-1 before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum and Respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as OP-2) was Respondent-2 before the State Commission in FA/2674/2015 and OP-2 before the District Forum in Complaint No. 165/2015.

3.         Notice was issued to the Respondents on 23.05.2019.  Parties filed Written Arguments on 31.10.2023 (Petitioner) and 30.10.2023 &  01.05.2024 (Respondent-1) respectively.  Respondent-2 was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 11.01.2024, however sent a request letter dated 02.04.2024 signed by One Gulshan Gupta, Authorised Signatory OP-2, stating therein that their Gorakhpur Area Dealership has been surrendered to their Principal M/s Tata Motor Ltd. Hence there is no staff in working because of this said establishment has been closed and all staff member has been removed only one security staff is still in duty.  Therefore, a request was made for appearance on next date of hearing.  Accordingly, Counsel for OP-2 was present before the Bench on 25.04.2024 (on the date the order was reserved).

4.         Brief facts of the case, as emerged from the RP, Order of the State Commission, Order of the District Commission and other case records are that: -

The complainant had purchased vehicle LPT 3118/56 TC on 20.01.2011 for earning his livelihood by paying Rs.50,000/- to OP No.2, on 06.12.2010 paid Rs.3,00,000/- and on 10.12.2010 paid Rs.48,000/- to OP No. 1 and OP No. 2. Besides the money deposited by the complainant, in addition the complainant taken loan in the sum of Rs. 14,80,000/- from OP No. 1 and said amount was paid to OP no. 2. Loan was to be repaid in 42 monthly installments which commenced from 11.01.2011. OP No.1 had also taken 10 Post-dated cheques (PDC). The complainant paid installments regularly for 2 years but thereafter could not pay instalment on time and payments were made with some delay. The parents of complainant were old and they had to be hospitalized owing to which the delay in payment occurred. The said vehicle of the complainant was registered with RTO and was insured for the sum of Rs.20.44 Lakhs being IDV Value through National Insurance Company. Complainant had got the body of the vehicle build himself and hence the value of the vehicle was Rs. 22,00,000/-. Installments were paid regularly till 2012. The complainant paid the last installment on 08.09.2014, on 08.10.2014 when the vehicle was coming to Gorakhpur then at Chandoli the same was stopped forcefully by the persons of the OP and took the vehicle in their possession. On objection the driver was handed over copy of Award of Arbitrator. The complainant did not have any knowledge of Arbitrator or Award before 08.10.2014 and no notice was issued to him. The complainant on telephone requested for release of vehicle and undertook to pay the outstanding installments at the earliest. The representatives of OP No.1 said that they can release the vehicle after getting order from higher authorities. The representatives of OP asked for payment of Rs.2,42,810/- within 48 hours for release of vehicle. The complainant was away because of treatment of his mother and on his return he went to the office of the OP to gather knowledge about the loan. Complainant informed that he was not sent any notice to inform that there was any outstanding in loan transaction. On perusal of the statement of loan account, it transpired that he had to pay Rs. 2,42,810/-. Installment outstanding was Rs. 1,77,927/-. Complainant was informed that the vehicle was sold as on old vehicle for Rs.2,42,810/-. At that time, the IDV value of vehicle was Rs.14,52,000/-. Complainant had incurred an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- on getting the body made and value of vehicle was Rs.18,00,000/-, which was sold by OP for Rs.2,42,810/-. The vehicle of the complainant was forcibly possessed because of which he was left with no source of income as the said vehicle was used by complainant for earning his livelihood. OP had no right to sell vehicle of complainant. In the aid of order passed in arbitration proceedings, vehicle has been sold by OPs to some person known to them and disclosed wrong facts. Thus dispute arose between the parties. Complainant asked OPs to release vehicle in favour of complainant, however, OP failed to do so. Hence, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.  

5.         Vide Order dated 20.11.2015 in the CC No. 165/2015, the District Forum, while accepting the complaint against OP-1,  passed the following order:

“Complaint of complainant is accepted against opposite party no. 1. Opposite party No. 1 is liable to pay a sum of Rs.13,62,857/- (Rupees Thirteen Lacs Sixty Two Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Seven only) along with interest @6% per annum from 08.10.2014 till actual payment. Opposite party no. 1 is directed to comply with directions within a period of one month by making payment to complainant or by depositing bank draft with Forum, so that it can be released to complainant. On the failure on part of the opposite party in compliance of order within the period provided, entire amount shall be recovered from opposite party in terms of provisions as provided for.”

6.         Aggrieved by the said Order dated 20.11.2015 of District Forum,  Petitioner/OP-1 appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 12.10.2018, while allowing the FA No.2674/2015, passed the following order: -

“Appeal is allowed in part. The impugned order dated 29.11.2015 passed by the district forum is modified and the appellant is directed to pay a sum of Rs.10,08,857.00 with simple  interest @ 9% p.a. from 29.11.2014 till the date of payment to the complainant/ respondent within a period of one month. Interest shall be payable from 29.11.2014 till payment of the entire amount. Apart from this the appellant shall also pay litigation expenses of             Rs.10,000/-  to the complainant/ respondent.”

7.         Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 12.10.2018 of the State Commission mainly/inter alia on following grounds:

i)            Orders passed by both the Fora below are contrary to the law of the land and facts established on record and are not in consonance with the documents and material on record. The State Commission by not setting aside the order of the District Forum and merely modifying the order, failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it and hence the said order is irregular and accordingly liable to be set aside. There is an apparent non-application of judicial mind by both the Fora below, who have failed to consider the relevant issues and objections raised by the petitioner in its written statement and otherwise.

ii)           The District Forum failed to appreciate that there was arbitration clause in the said Agreement for determination of any disputes and differences. Due to non-payment of installments, arbitration was invoked and arbitration award dated 06.06.2014 has also been passed in favour of the petitioner. The said Award has not been challenged by the complainant and is enforceable as decree of Court in terms of Section 36 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996. The Fora below have passed orders in complete derogation of the said Award and the orders are thus legally infirm. The parties having agreed to get their disputes and differences adjudicated through arbitration and arbitration award also having been passed, the complaint was not maintainable.

iii)         The Fora below failed to appreciate that the Award had been passed as per law, it held good till being set aside by a competent Court in terms of Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996 and the Fora below did not have any jurisdiction to pass orders in derogation of the said Award.

iv)   This Commission in S. Banwant Singh vs. Kanpur Development Authority III (2009) CPJ 425 NC has held that if the petitioner is not satisfied with the award of the Arbitrator then the remedy lies in proceeding against that order of the Arbitrator, as per law and that no complaint under Consumer Protection Act is maintainable.

v) This Commission in Instalment Supply Ltd. vs Kangra Ex-Serviceman Transport I (2007) CPJ 34 NC has observed that where an Award was passed it would govern the disputes between the parties and the Fora below should not have passed an order by overlooking the Award. The State Commission has sought to distinguish the aforesaid judgment on the ground that there was no proper service in the present case. The said distinction is not only bad in law but also on facts of the case and the State Commission was bound by the said judgment and ought to have followed the same.

vi)          This Commission in M/s. Sahara India Financial Corporation Ltd. & ors. Vs. Komal Chand Jain [RP No. 827/2010 decided on 29.09.2016] held that where an award of arbitrator was passed rejecting the claim of the complainant, which was not challenged by the complainant, the claim of the complainant could not have been directed to be reexamined by the Fora. (Followed in Sahara India Commercial vs. Sanjay Mangal & Anr. RP 23 of 2015 decided on on 26 April, 2017).

vii)        The State Commission failed to appreciate that there was a deemed service of the notices of arbitration proceedings by virtue of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, Section 114 Illustration (f) of the Evidence Act and Section 3 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996. The Arbitrator has specifically given a finding as to service of the complainant and the State Commission could not have reopened or reassessed the said finding in the present proceedings and acted as an appellate authority to the arbitrator totally negating Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996. All  the notices/ communications have been sent by post at the addresses of the complainant and there was nothing further that could have been done on the part of the petitioner/ Arbitrator and the said notices/ communications are thus deemed to have been served upon the complainant. (Reliance on K.Bhaskaran vs. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan [1999 (7) SCC 510]; V. Raja Kumari vs. P. Subbarama Naidu [2004 (8) SCC 774]).  The complainant was fully aware of the demand notices, arbitration proceedings and the Award but despite this deliberately did not comply with the demands or participate in the arbitration proceedings. The complainant having deliberately shied away from the proceedings ought not to have been allowed to seek reliefs in derogation of the Award and that too without following the procedure under Section 34 of the Arbitration & Conciliation Act 1996. The complainant as per his own admission was a defaulter, repossession and sale of vehicle have been done in terms of the Arbitral Award and there is thus no deficiency at the end of the petitioner.

viii)       The petitioner was only entitled to the excess on sale of Rs.3,68,857/- which the petitioner had been ready and willing to pay to the complainant and the grant of any amount in excess of the same amounts to unjust enrichment of the complainant and that too when the situation occurred owing to his own wrong in defaulting on his commitments. The Fora below have failed to appreciate that the complainant was a defaulter and the vehicle was repossessed and sold after notice in terms of the Agreement and as per law and hence there was no deficiency in services or unfair trade practice on the part of the petitioner.

ix)          The Fora below failed to appreciate that in terms of the Agreement, the petitioner was entitled and empowered to repossess the vehicle and the said right was reaffirmed by the Arbitrator by granting order under Section 17 and passing Arbitral Award. Thus, the repossession and sale of the vehicle consequent to default did not suffer from any infirmity. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Managing Director, Maharashtra State Financial Corporation vs. Sanjay Shankarsa Mamarde AIR 2010 SC 3534 has held that, 'Where borrower has no genuine intention to repay and adopts pretext and ploys to avoid payment, then no grievance can be made out against the corporation.'

x)           The Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Managing Director, Orix Auto Finance (India) Ltd. vs. Shri Jagminder Singh (2006) 2 SCC 598 has held that  'If agreements permit the financier to take possession of the financed vehicles, there is no legal impediment on such possession being taken. This Commission in Pramod Kumar Rai v. Sriram Transport Finance Co. Ltd. III (2012) CPJ553(NC), has observed that Finance Company is well within its rights to seize the vehicle as per the agreement while referring to its earlier judgment in Surendra Kumar Aggarwal vs. Telco Finance Limited II (2010) CPJ163(NC) wherein it was held that mere fact that possession was taken by the respondents cannot be the ground to contend that the hirer is prejudiced. This  Commission in Shantilata Das vs ICICI Bank Ltd. RP No. 3544 of 2013 decided on 29 October, 2013 found no deficiency to have been committed by the Bank in the matter of repossession and sale of the hypothecated vehicle, and set aside the order passed by the District Forum. This Commission agreed that there was default in payment of the EMI as per the agreement, the Bank was empowered to repossess the vehicle, and for realisation of the outstanding loan amount, the Bank being the owner of the vehicle and the person to whom the finance was made being the hirer, had every right to sell the vehicle.

xi)          This  Commission in Axis Bank Ltd. vs Shri S. Venugopal Naidu, RP No. 742 of 2014 decided on 15 December, 2014 has held that in terms of the Agreement OP was perfectly within its rights to ask for whole of the due amount on default of payment of instalments and OP was within its rights to recover possession of the vehicle on default in payment of instalments and to sell the vehicle and no deficiency could be found in this regard.  This  Commission in Sheelakumari V/s. Tata Engineering reported in II (2007) CPJ 92 (NC) and St. Mary's Hire Purchase (P) V/s. N. A. Jose reported in III (1995) CPJ 58 (NC) has held that a seizure of vehicle under an agreement for default of payment of installments cannot be considered as deficiency in services. This Commission in Parmeshwari Devi vs. VST Service Station 2010(2) CP) 45 (NC) has recognized the right of the financier under the hire purchase agreement to take possession and sell the vehicle in case of default in payment of installments without issuance of any notice since the rights of the parties are strictly governed by the terms of the Agreement and this Commission in Surender Kumar Sahoo vs. Branch Manager, Indusind Bank 2012 (4) CPR 313 noted that the Agreement- cum-Hypothecation Agreement clearly provided that the monthly instalment are to be paid regularly on monthly basis and any delay or default in paying the monthly instalment is a breach in the terms and conditions of the Agreement and clause gives the opposite party a legal right to repossess the vehicle to secure the loan payment in the event of default and also to sell the asset to secure the loan amount. The petitioner waddled out of his commitments and indisputably he was the defaulter. The moment he did not pay the instalment it gives the legal right to the financier to repossess the vehicle.

xii)        The  Fora below have failed to appreciate that the parties had entered into an Agreement and thus are under an obligation to act as per the terms and conditions agreed therein. The petitioner was required to advance finance under the agreement with the complainant which has been duly provided and thus duly performed its part of the agreement. Under the Agreement, payment of the installments as per the repayment schedule was the essence of the contract and was undertaken by the complainant. Under Clause 9.1 of the Agreement, the borrower had undertaken that the liability and obligation to repay the amount of loan along with interest and other charges shall be absolute and unconditional and the borrower shall pay the same regardless of any circumstances or dispute. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharti Knitting Company vs. DHL Worldwide Express Courier 1996 (4) SCC 704 has held that when the complainant signs contract documents, he is bound by the terms and conditions. This Commission in Karnataka State Financial Corporation vs. Sheela S Kotecha,  RP no. 488 of 2005 dated 16.09.2009 has held that, "When there has been a contract between the parties that being a bilateral action, both parties are bound by the terms and conditions as stipulated therein.  The Fora below have sought to rewrite the terms and conditions of the same, and granted reliefs in total contradiction to the terms and conditions of the said agreement which is not legally permissible. (Reliance on Tamil Nadu Housing Board Vs. Sea Shore Apartment Welfare Association AIR 2008 SC 1151; Polymat India(P) Ltd. Vs. National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2005) 9 SCC 174; S.R.Batra Vs. Smt. Taruna Batra (2007) 3 SCC 169, Bhagwati Prasad Pawan Kumar Vs Union of India (2006) 5 SCC 311; T.V. Sundaram Iyengar & Sons Ltd. vs. Dr. Muthuswamy Duraiswamy II (2003) CPJ 176(NC) DD.

xiii)       In the Agreement it was agreed that all disputes are subject to Mumbai Jurisdiction only. That the parties thus agreed to vest exclusive jurisdiction on the Courts at Mumbai and jurisdiction of all other Courts thus stood excluded and the Fora below thus had no jurisdiction over the matter. (Reliance on Hukum Singh vs. Gammon India Ltd. 1971 (1) SCC 286; ABC Laminart vs. AP Agency AIR 1989 SC 1239; New Moga Transport Co. vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. 2004 (4) SCC 677). The Fora below failed to appreciate that the complainant neither falls under the definition of consumer in terms of Section 2(1)(d) of the Act nor the vehicle used for the purpose of his livelihood and the vehicle has been purchased by the complainant only for "Business Purpose/commercial use" for earning profits and he chose not to produce a single document to show that the vehicle was used for his livelihood.

xiv)       The dispute between the parties at best was as to settlement of account. This  Commission in Vishal Roadways vs. Economic Traders (Gujarat) Ltd., III (1998) CPJ 9 (NC), has observed that the complaint relates to settlement of accounts between the parties and recovery of balance amount, and appropriate remedy lies in the Civil Court and it is not a "consumer dispute."  

8.         Heard counsel of both sides.  Contentions/pleas of the parties, on various issues raised in the RP, Written Arguments, and Oral Arguments advanced during the hearing, are summed up below.

8.1       In addition to the averments made under the grounds (para 7), the petitioner contended that after considering the application, the petitioner granted a loan for a sum of Rs.14,80,000/- to the complainant for purchase  of Truck LPT3118TC under Agreement dated 06.12.2010.  The complainant was liable to perform the terms and conditions of the Agreement including repayment thereto as per agreed schedule, whereby the amount was payable in 42 installments totaling Rs.21,29,728/- .  The complainant failed to adhere to the repayment schedule despite repeated requests and the account became NPA.  Owing to the default at the end of the complainant the Agreement was terminated and recalled by way of notice dated 08.03.2104 and the complainant was called upon to pay the entire outstanding amount.  The complainant failed to comply with the demands made in the said notice.  Arbitration was invoked in terms of the Agreement between the parties and dispute and differences referred to Sole Arbitrator on 15.03.2014.  Notice of the arbitral proceedings was issued to the complainant by the Arbitrator on 15.03.2014 for 12.04.2014 but the complainant and others failed to enter appearance or file any objections/defense.  Second notice dated 19.04.2014 was issued for 31.05.2014 to the same effect.  The complainant and others failed to appear on that date also, accordingly proceeded ex parte.  The Arbitrator after considering the statement of claim, documents relied upon by the petitioner and applicable law was pleased to pass an Award dated 06.06.2014 thereby holding that the petitioner was entitled to a sum of Rs.4,76,420/- with interest @18% p.a. from 07.03.2014 till realization and also holding the petitioner entitled to sell the vehicle for realization of the said amount. In terms of the order U/s 17 of the Act and the Arbitral Award, the vehicle was repossessed on 29.11.2014 after giving pre-repossession intimation to the Police Station Ramnagar , Distt. Varanasi, U.P. After repossession of the vehicle a post-repossession intimation was also given to the Police Station, Ramnagar, Distt. Varanasi, UP.  On 02.12.2014, pre-sale notice was issued to the complainant, demanding the outstanding amount within 48 hours, failing which, the vehicle would be sold.  The complainant failed to comply with said notice.  The petitioner thus got the valuation of the vehicle conducted and was given a valuation of Rs.5,85,000/-.  The vehicle was thereafter auctioned for the best available price of Rs.8,10,000/-  on 20.04.2015.  After adjustment of Rs.4,41,143/- an amount of  Rs.3,68,857/- remained with the petitioner and petitioner was always ready and willing to pay the said amount and had also sought bank account details from the complainant for transfer of the amount, however, the complainant never came forward to claim the said amount or provide his bank account details. Thereafter, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.  The District Forum admitting that there was default in repayment due to medical problems in family; the vehicle was forcefully repossessed on 08.10.2014 by showing award of Arbitrator which was not in the knowledge of complainant and no notice was received by the complainant, receipt of pre-sale notice by the guarantor was admitted, however, it was alleged that the complainant did not receive any notice and when he visited he was informed that the vehicle had been sold for Rs.2,42,810/-. It is further contended by the Petitioner that Arbitration was duly invoked and Arbitration award was being passed.  In this regard the Petitioner relied upon various judgments, already mentioned under grounds. It is further contended that the complainant has admitted that he has defaulted in repayment of loan amount.  Complainant as per his own admission was a defaulter, repossession and sale of vehicle; has been done in terms of the Arbitral Award and there is thus no deficiency at the end of the petitioner.  In this regard also the petitioner has relied upon various judgments of Hon’ble Supreme  Court and National Commission, which are already referred to in the preceding para. It is also contended by the Petitioner that the complainant is not a consumer in terms of section 2 (1)(d) of the Act nor the vehicle used for the purpose of his livelihood and the vehicle has been purchased by the complainant only for ‘Business Purpose/commercial use’ for earning profits and he chose not to produce a single document to show that the vehicle was used for his livelihood.  It is also contended that the dispute between the parties was as to settlement of account.  In support of this contention, the Petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Commission in Vishal Roadways vs. Economic Traders (Gujarat) Ltd. III (1998) CPJ 9 (NC), has observed that the complaint relates to settlement of accounts between the parties and recovery of balance amount, and appropriate remedy lies in the Civil Court and it is not a “consumer complaint”.  It is also submitted that in view of the grounds both legal and factual, orders passed by the District Forum and State Commission suffer from prima facie jurisdictional error and miscarriage of justice, and thus the orders are un-sustainable and this Commission under its revisional powers set aside the orders passed by the Fora below and the necessary orders be passed as prayed under the petition.

8.2       On the other hand Respondent-1 contended that the complainant had purchased Truck with the aid of loan under Agreement.  The IDV of the vehicle was 20,44,000/- on  06.12.2010 to 05.12.2011. IDV of the vehicle is calculated without taking the body of the vehicle in question.  Respondent-1 further spent Rs.3,00,000/- in getting the body of the vehicle. The vehicle was seized on 08.10.2014. The IDV for the period from 06.12.2013 to 05.12.2014 was Rs.14,52,000/-.  It is further contended that the Respondent-1 regularly paid the instalments for two years and 10 post-dated cheques were also taken by the Petitioner.  Last installment was paid on 08.09.2014. It is further contended that Respondent-1 had paid Rs.18,86,917/- out of total amount of Rs.21,29,728/- to the Petitioner.   Only an amount of Rs.2,42,810/-was due to be paid on the day the vehicle was illegally seized by the Petitioner.  As the mother of complainant fell seriously ill during the said period, when she got a little better, the complainant met with the officials of the Petitioner and he also paid instalment on 08.09.2014. The dispute with respect to the payment of the instalments had been referred to the Arbitrator on 15.03.2014.  The Arbitrator passed ex parte award on 06.06.2014.  The complainant was neither party to the arbitration proceedings nor there is any reference in the award about the notice having been issued by registered post not the Petitioner has produced any proof to the effect that the Notice was served upon the Respondent-1.  It is also contended that the vehicle was suddenly seized on 08.10.2014 without any notice despite payment of installment on  08.09.2014. The guarantor of the vehicle got notice on 10.01.2015 i.e. after more than 3 months from the date of seizure of the vehicle and a time of 48 hours was given although Clause 18.3 of the Agreement provide a noticed period of 14 days.  The Petitioner failed to produce and prove relevant documents with respect to the fact that the Respondent-1 was properly served with the notice as per law which the Petitioner was duty-bound to do as per law.  Hence, filed complaint before the District Forum and District Forum directed the Petitioner to pay Rs.13,62,857/- with interest @6% p.a. from 08.10.2014 till actual payment vide its order dated 29.11.2015.  The State Commission allowed the appeal in part and modified the order of the District Forum and directed the Petitioner herein to pay a sum of Rs.10,08,857/- after reducing the claim amount and reducing the amount spent on making the body of the vehicle which the District Forum had taken at Rs.1,50,000/- as the vehicle was about three years old.  It is also contended that both the Fora have given a concurrent finding with respect to deficiency in service on the part of the Petitioner.  The scope of the Revision Petition filed by the Petitioner is therefore, limited and as such, the Petition should be dismissed on this ground alone. The Petitioner seized and auctioned the vehicle in haste to defeat the right of Respondent-1.  No opportunity was given to Respondent-1 to take part in the auction process. In support of his contention, the complainant relied upon the following judgments:

1. Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. v. S. Vijaylaxmi, III (2007) CPJ 40 (NC).

2. HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Balwinder Singh, III (2009) CPJ 40 (NC).

9.         We have carefully gone through the orders of State Commission, District Forum, other relevant records and rival contentions of the parties.  The IDV of the vehicle as per last Insurance Policy was Rs.14.52 lakhs.  The vehicle was seized by the Petitioner on 08.10.2014.  Petitioner got the valuation of vehicle done at Rs.5,85,000/- and sold it for Rs.8,10,000/- on 20.04.2015.  The Petitioner submitted that after adjusting the amount of Rs.4,41,143/- payable in the account, Petitioner is left with balance of Rs.3,68,857/-, for which he has no objection in refunding.  Petitioner further contended that they took the possession of the vehicle and sold the vehicle in accordance with the Arbitration Award, and hence have committed no illegality, and cannot be held liable for any deficiency in service in this regard.

10.       District Forum found that vehicle has been wrongfully re-possessed and sold and hence allowed the complaint and directed the OP to pay Rs.13,62,857/- along with interest @6% p.a.  The State Commission in its order has observed as follows:-

     “Though, there is force in the argument of the counsel for the appellant that when the parties had agreed to refer their disputes to arbitration, disputes were referred to arbitration and award came to be passed then complaint could not have been filed before district forum. However, in our view the information of reference of arbitration and notice of proceedings to complainant/ respondent has to be proved. If information of reference of arbitration and notice of proceedings to complainant/ respondent is proved then definitely complainant cannot prefer a complaint before consumer forum after passing of award. Such a complaint is not maintainable before district forum. But if information of reference of arbitration and notice of proceedings to complainant/ respondent is not proved then the award passed without any opportunity of hearing to the complainant/ respondent is without any force. Under these circumstances, complaint would be maintainable before consumer forum in terms of Section 3 in our view.

xxxx

It is relevant to mention that along with the memo of appeal the appellant has filed copy of the agreement executed between the parties. As per Clause 18(3) of the Agreement in case of default in payment of installment a notice of 14 days is to be given by the lender before taking repossession of disputed property. Hence it was necessary to give notice of 14 days before taking repossession of the disputed property in terms of the said clause. However, neither from the written statement nor from the documents on record it appears that any such notice was issued. It is not the case of the appellant that before sale any notice was issued to the complainant. Under these circumstances the repossession of the vehicle cannot be said to be legal. In terms of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Citicorp Maruti Finance Ltd. vs. S. Vijaylaxmi the action of repossession by the appellant amounts to deficiency in services./

From a reading of the impugned order it transpires that the vehicle was insured on the date of its repossession i.e. 29.11.2014 and the IDV was Rs.14,52,000.00. It is an undisputed fact that the complainant/ respondent got the body of the vehicle built. It is also an undisputed fact that the vehicle was 2-3 years old at the time of repossession. District forum has taken the expenses incurred on body building as Rs. 1,50,000.00 and added this to the value of the vehicle. When the insurance company had valued the vehicle at Rs.14,52,000.00 then addition of the amount spent on the said vehicle once again does not make any sense. It is justified to take the value of the vehicle as Rs.14,50,000.00.

As per the appellant on the date of repossession an amount of Rs. 4,41,143.00 was payable by the complainant. Hence in our view the complainant is entitled to receive the amount after deduction of these dues from the value of the vehicle. Since the vehicle was the source of livelihood for the complainant and had unauthorisedly been repossessed by the appellant he faced financial and mental harassment. In view thereof, interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of repossession i.e. 29.11.2014 is also justified. Since the balance amount is being paid with interest hence there is no justification for separately granting any compensation. The appeal is accordingly liable to allowed in part.”

11.       As regards legality of re-possession of vehicle and deficiency in service on the part of OP, there are concurrent findings of both the Fora below against the Petitioner herein.  As has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments^[1] that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission is extremely limited, it should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the provision i.e. when State Commission had exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or had failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction so vested or had acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity.  It is only when such findings are found to be against any provisions of law or against the pleadings or evidence or are found to be wholly perverse, a case for interference may call for at the second appellate ( revisional ) jurisdiction. In exercising of revisonal jurisdiction, the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission, which are on appreciation of evidence on record.

12.       In view of the foregoing, we are of the considered view that State Commission has given a well-reasoned order and we find to reason to interfere with its findings. We find no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission, hence the same is upheld. Accordingly, Revision Petition is dismissed.

13.       The pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.