1. The present Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the Order passed by the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Vazhuthacaud, Thiruvananthapuram (hereinafter referred to as the “State Commission”) in Appeal No. 91/2011 dated 31.08.2011.

    

2. In the Complaint Case, it is stated that Respondent/Complainant is a driver by profession and for earning his livelihood, in the month of December, 2009, he approached the Petitioner/Opposite Party for obtaining loan to purchase a lorry. The Respondent entered into a loan cum hypothecation agreement with the Petitioner and took a loan of Rs.2,20,000/- and purchased a lorry (goods carriage) bearing Reg. NO. KL-13B-8705. As per the terms of contract, Respondent was to pay Rs.8,500/- as monthly instalment for 3 years. The Respondent paid Rs.11,500/- on 8.12.2009 and Rs.8,500/- on 04.01.2010,. It is further stated that on 13.01.2010, the Petitioner repossessed the vehicle in question from the Respondent by using force. On the next day, the Respondent approached the Petitioner and questioned about repossessing of his vehicle. The blank letter heads of the Petitioner, where the Respondent’s signatures were obtained at the time of grant of loan, was converted as the Respondent’s acknowledgement of surrender.It is submitted by the Respondent that at no point of time he defaulted in paying any instalments towards the loan obtained from the Petitioner. Due to the said illegal re-possession, the Complainant became unemployed and suffered a huge loss. Thus, Complaint was filed by the Respondent against the Petitioner directing him to return the vehicle and payment of Rs.1,000/- per day from 14.01.2010 till delivery of vehicle towards loss of income, together with a compensation of Rs.10,000/- and a cost of Rs.5,000/-.

    

3. The Petitioner filed written statement, in which he contended that due to some misunderstanding between the Respondent and his guarantor, the Respondent surrendered the vehicle on 31.12.2009. It was further stated by the Petitioner that the Respondent defaulted payment of the monthly instalment amount and the Respondent is also not a consumer as the relationship between the Respondent and Petitioner is arising out of a loan cum hypothecation agreement.

    

4. The District Forum, vide order dated 30.10.2010, allowed the Complaint on the basis of evidence available on record which showed that the Petitioner committed grave deficiency in the service. Thus, the Petitioner was directed to refund Rs.1,26,000/-, which the Respondent had spent to make the vehicle roadworthy, together with a Compensation of Rs.30,000/- for the loss and mental agony suffered by the Respondent, cost of Rs.4,000/- and interest at 12% on Rs.1,26,000/- from the date of complaint till payment.On receipt of the said payment, the Respondent shall return the RC of the vehicle to the Petitioner and execute the necessary documents for transfer of the vehicle.

    

5. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed an Appeal before the State Commission against the Respondent. The State Commission, vide order dated 31.08.2011 partly allowed the Appeal by stating that the order passed was justified and correct. Only the order of the District Forum was modified to the effect that the Petitioner shall pay Rs.76,000/- and compensation to the Respondent. It was further stated that the Forum shall permit the Respondent to withdraw the amount only on returning the RC book of the vehicle and executing the necessary documents for transfer of the vehicle. Also, if the amount is not remitted in time, the Respondent would be entitled for interest at 12% from 31.08.2011, the date of the order.

    

6. Being aggrieved by the order passed by the State Commission, the present Revision Petition is filed.

    

7. Heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The Respondent is proceeded ex-parte.

    

8. It is the case of the Complainant that he has availed loan from the Petitioner for purchase of lorry and remitted the monthly instalments on time.The Petitioner forcefully repossessed the vehicle on 13.01.2010 and he, thereby suffered a huge loss.The Petitioner’s contention was that due to misunderstanding between the Respondent and his guarantor, the Respondent surrendered the vehicle on 31.12.2009.He also contended that the Respondent defaulted in payment of monthly instalments.

    

9. As seen from the record, the Respondent paid Rs.11,500/- and Rs.8500/- on 8.12.2009 and 4.1.2010 respectively towards monthly instalments.As is seen from the record, the Respondent has not defaulted in payment of monthly instalment as alleged by the Petitioner.Further, as rightly observed by the District Forum, if the Petitioner had voluntarily surrendered the vehicle on 31.12.2009, there was no reason for him to pay instalment on 04.01.2010 and keep the R.C. with himself.The Respondent also alleges that the vehicle was forcefully repossessed on 13.01.2010 and to cover-up the forceful repossession of the vehicle, the Petitioner has utilized the blank letterhead with signatures of the Respondent at the bottom, to type out an acknowledgment letter dated 14.01.2010, confirming the surrender of the vehicle on 31.12.2009.If at all an acknowledgement was to be given it should have been given on 31 December 2009 itself when the vehicle was surrendered or latest on 01.01.2010 and issuing the letter on 14.01.2010 raises an apprehension that the letter was a cover-up for the forceful repossession of the vehicle by the Petitioner on 13.10.2010.From the above sequence of events, we are convinced that the vehicle was forcefully repossessed by the Petitioner and it was not a case of voluntary surrender, as rightly observed in the concurrent findings of both the fora below.

    

10. The Respondent/Complainant is a ‘consumer’ as defined in section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.He obtained loan from the Petitioner and paid monthly instalments.The Petitioner abruptly repossessed the vehicle, though the Petitioner was duly discharging his obligation of paying monthly instalments.

     

11. The learned counsel for the Petitioner cited the case of “Narbada Devi Gupta vs. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal (2003) 8 SCC 745”.The facts in this case are entirely different from the present case.In the above referred case, rent receipts were issued by the Plaintiff with the signatures at the back.The plaintiff also did not plead any fraud or forgery nor offer any explanation as to how the blank printed rent receipts thumb marked and signed at the back portion by the plaintiff, came in possession of the defendant.In the present case the Respondent has not given any signed letter of voluntary surrender.It is a case of an acknowledgement given by the Petitioner using a blank letterhead on which signatures of the Respondent was obtained at the time of availing of loan.

     

12. In the case of “Surendra Kumar Agarwal vs. TELCO Finance Limited & Anr. II (2010) CPJ 163(NC)”, Tata truck was purchased under the hire-purchase agreement and there was default and non-payment of some loan instalments.The Petitioner stated that the Respondent forcefully repossessed the truck, due to which the Petitioner suffered huge loss.No statement of Account showing repayment of loan instalments has been filed by the Petitioner.It was admitted before the State Commission that the Petitioner had defaulted several times in making the payment on the dates when it was due.Again, the facts and circumstances in the present case are different.It is an admitted fact that on 26.11.2009, the Petitioner entered into the hire-purchase-cum-guarantee agreement with the Respondent for financing a Truck bearing No. KL-13B-8705 for a total hypothecation amount of Rs.3,88,000/- and signed an agreement to the effect that the said amount will be paid by the Respondent by way of monthly instalments, wherein the first monthly instalment was to be paid on 05.01.2010 and the rest in monthly equated instalment.The Respondent, however, made payments of Rs.11,500/- on 08.12.2009 and Rs.8,500/- on 04.01.2010 towards monthly instalments and there has been no default in payment of the loan amount.As per the findings of District Forum and State Commission it is clear that there was no default on the part of the Respondent and Petitioner forcefully repossessed the vehicle without giving any reasons/notice for the same to the Respondent.

     

Having heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and after carefully going through the record and the orders of the District Forum and State Commission, we do not find any justifiable reason to interfere with the findings of the consumer fora below.  The present Revision Petition is, therefore, dismissed and the order passed by the State Commission is upheld.  There shall be no order as to costs.