PER BHARATKUMAR PANDYA, MEMBER

1.         This revision petition has been filed by the complainant against the concurrent adverse factual findings of both the fora below. The brief facts are that the complainant had obtained finance from the financier M/s Mahindra & Mahindra Financial Services Ltd. for purchase of a Bolero Jeep. Loan of Rs.4,20,000/- was sanctioned under Loan-cum-Hypothecation Agreement dated 21.10.2005 executed between the parties which provided for equal monthly instalments of Rs.11,643/- per month for 48 months. The case of the complainant before District Forum was that on default of just two monthly instalments in the months of February and March, 2007, the vehicle was illegally repossessed by the agents of the finance company and some papers in the nature of surrender letter, etc. were obtained by the muscle men on behalf of the financer. Then the officer of the financier informed to the complainant to pay the total outstanding amount along with repossession charges, etc. within one week, failing which the vehicle would be sold. However, when the complainant visited the financier’s office along with outstanding amount on 02.04.2007, he was told that his vehicle had already been sold to the Third Person. The main controversy is that the complainant has alleged that the vehicle has been illegally repossessed while the finance company has in reply denying the allegation stated that the vehicle was voluntarily surrendered by the complainant, thereafter a formal repossession notice, as required under law, was issued and then the vehicle has been sold by way of open auction for Rs.3,10,000/-. The only evidence, apart from the averment of the complainant himself, filed by the complainant to support the allegation of forceful and illegal repossession, is the alleged complaint made to the police authorities on 11.04.2007 by registered post.

2.         On the other hand, right in the written statement, as also by way of filing the evidences in the nature of surrender letter dated 13.03.2007 duly signed by the complainant and the witnesses, the notice dated 26.03.2007 issued to the complainant, intimation dated 11.04.2007 to the police authorities, legal notice dated 23.03.2007 and valuation report dated 29.03.2007, the OP had contended that the vehicle was surrendered by the complainant and thereafter formally repossessed as required under the law and that there is no deficiency in service. There is no dispute that some instalments were overdue giving overdue amount of nearly Rs.44,000/-. The District Forum has, on the basis of evidence on record, as a factual finding and after duly appreciating the facts, recorded that the vehicle in fact was surrendered after the default in the loan repayment and therefore, no finding of deficient service on the part of the finance company can be arrived at. The same is reproduced as under: 

“5.         The complainant is alleging that the vehicle in question was forcibly snatched by the opposite party. It is not disputed that the due instalments were not paid by the complainant to opposite party. Opposite party, on the other hand, has taken the stand that the complainant has levelled false allegations. In fact, he himself has surrendered the vehicle and handed over the same to the opposite party on account of his financial crises and non payment of instalments. A perusal of surrender letter Ex.OP-3 and Ex. OP-4 reveals that the complainant himself has surrendered the vehicle. Moreover, voluntary surrender is also supported by intimation to the police which shows that the complainant voluntarily surrendered the vehicle. The complainant has also lodged a complaint Ex. C-3 to the police alleging forcible possession of the vehicle. However, there is nothing to show that this complaint was received by the police as there is no diary number, date of receipt, etc. except postal receipt Ex.C-4. The complainant has suppressed and mentioned nothing as to what happened on this complaint if it was at all made. The forcible possession of the vehicle amounts to committing robbery and police could not have sit over such a serious application. The non disclosure as to what happened on this application and as to what action was taken gives rise to adverse inference against the complainant. There is not even an iota of evidence on the file that the vehicle was snatched by the opposite party forcibly. No case of deficiency is revealed against the opposite party. Thus, we find no force in the complaint which is therefore dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.”

3.         After appreciating the same evidence, State Commission has also come to the same conclusion and has passed the following order:

“6.         Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the signatures of Pawan Kumar were obtained on blank papers when loan was sanctioned and they were converted in surrender letters Ex.OP3 and Ex.OP4. It was also argued that no notice was given before the sale, which was necessary, so it amounts to deficiency in service as opined by Hon'ble National Commission in City Bank N.A. Vs. Pardeep Kumar Patri and another 2012 (1) CLT 632.

7.          This argument is devoid of any force. Complainant no-where alleged that the signatures of Pawan Kumar were obtained by force or fraud. It is alleged by them that the vehicle was snatched. This story is falsified by the surrender letters Ex. OP3 and Ex.OP4. There is no evidence on the file to show that any fraud was played with him. Had it been so, the complainants must have got registered a case against the concerned person. Further when the complainants surrendered the vehicle, there is no necessity of notice before sale. The complainants cannot derive any benefit from the cited case law as this is based on different footings. When they themselves surrendered the vehicle, now it cannot be alleged that there is any deficiency in service. The findings of learned District Forum are well reasoned based on law and facts and cannot be disturbed. Hence the appeal fails and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.”

4.         We have heard Mr. Vaibhav Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners, who has taken us through the documents relied upon by both the fora below and vehemently pleaded that both the fora below have wrongly appreciated the facts on record and ignored the glaring inconsistency inherent in the stand taken by the financier. Learned counsel submitted that the facts have wrongly been appreciated because the question like why the notice dated 23.03.2007 was issued, if at all the vehicle was surrendered as early as on 13.03.2007 remained unanswered. Similarly, such question remained unanswered with regard to the notice dated 26.03.2007 whereby the complainant was called upon to clear the outstanding amounts within seven days while the process of selling the vehicle in the market was already initiated on 29.03.2007. Therefore, the fact that the vehicle was in fact illegally repossessed and that the finance company is only trying to cover up the illegal action is evident. Replying the same, learned counsel Mr. Amrit Koul, on behalf of the respondent/finance company has first submitted that concurrent factual findings arrived at by both the fora below cannot be interfered with by this Commission in revisional jurisdiction. Further explaining the facts, it has been submitted that there is absolutely no inconsistency as suggested by the complainant and the surrender letter dated 13.03.2007 duly supported by the affidavit dated 26.03.2007 of the Branch Manager of the finance company has remained uncontroverted till date and therefore, also no error in the concurrent factual findings of the fora below can be arrived at. The questions raised by learned State Commission, as per the learned counsel, have not at all been attempted to be answered by the complainant even before this Commission in as much as there is no explanation on record as to why, if at all, the vehicle was illegally repossessed, the police complaint was not filed for a long period of nearly one month from 13.03.2007 to 11.04.2007 wherein also it is alleged that the complaint was actually sent only by registered post, and not in person. No follow up with the police authorities also have been made by the complainant after sending the alleged complaint by post, as has been observed by learned State Commission. Otherwise also, relying on para 92 of the Supreme Court’s decision in Magma Fincorp Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari (2020) 10 SCC 399 to assert that though the vehicle was surrendered by the complainant himself, there is no illegality even if the vehicle was repossessed in terms of Clause 14 of the Hire Purchase agreement. Both the fora below have rightly appreciated the facts.

5.         We are in agreement with both the Fora that there is no credible material on record to show that there is any illegal or forceful repossession by the financier. The lack of credibility of the alleged police complaint and the inaction of the complainant thereafter have been duly noted by the Fora below. There is no perversity or palpably wrong appreciation of facts or error or illegality in the findings of the State Commission. There is, therefore, no merit in the revision petition. Hence the same is dismissed.