1. The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 in the Complaint (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Finance Company”) under Section 21 (b) of the Consumer Protection Act 1986 (for short “the Act”) against the Order dated 28.11.2016 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Uttar Pradesh at Lucknow (for short "the State Commission") in First Appeal Nos. 1328 of 2015 and 1617 of 2015. By the Impugned Order, the State Commission while affirming the finding of facts returned by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Allahabad (for short, "the District Forum") had dismissed both the First Appeals preferred by the Complainant as well as Petitioner herein. The District Forum vide its Order dated 22.05.2015  had partly allowed the Complaint filed by the Complainant and had directed the Opposite Party Nos. 1 & 2/Petitioner herein to pay an amount of ₹3,25,000/-, the value of the vehicle in question to the Complainant along with interest @8% p.a. from the date of filing of Complaint till the date of actual payment. The Complainant was also awarded ₹50,000/- as compensation and ₹5,000/- as costs of the litigation.
2. At the outset, it may be noted that this is a second round of litigation.  In the first round of litigation, the Complaint filed by the Complainant against the Opposite Parties alleging deficiency in service was dismissed by the District Forum vide Order dated 11.06.2007 holding that the Complainant was not a “Consumer” as defined u/s 2 (1) (d) of the Act, as the vehicle in question was purchased for commercial purposes. The said Order was challenged by the Complainant before the State Commission by filing First Appeal No. 533 of 2008 which was allowed by it vide Order dated 02.01.2013. The State Commission reached at the conclusion that the vehicle was purchased by the Complainant only for earning her livelihood and accordingly, the matter was remanded back to the District Forum to decide the case afresh after due appreciation of the evidence led by the parties.
3. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the Complaint are that the Complainant had purchased Tata SPCO bearing registration No. UP 70 U - 8552 after availing the loan facility from the Opposite Party No.2, the Branch of the Opposite Party No.1, Finance Company. The total costs of the vehicle was ₹4,07,000/- out of which the Complainant paid an amount of ₹1,37,000/- in cash and the balance amount of ₹2,70,000/- was financed by the Opposite Party No.2. The Complainant took physical possession of the vehicle on 23.08.2001. The loan amount was to be repaid by the Complainant to the Finance Company in 37 equated monthly instalment @ ₹8,986/-. It is averred that the Complainant had paid 34 instalments regularly to the Opposite Party No.2, however, remaining instalments could not be paid by the Complainant to them due to ill - health and financial constraints. The Complainant also informed the same to the Opposite Parties orally and in writing. According to the Complainant, on 15.01.2005, 4 to 5 persons of the Opposite Party No. 3 forcefully re-possessed the vehicle due to non-payment of instalments even without issuing any notice to her and the vehicle was kept in their garage. Subsequently, Complainant had deposited the balance amount of the entire loan to the Opposite Party on 25.01.2005 including ₹6000/- for seizure charges and additional DPC charges on 23.09.2005.  Hence, on 22.05.2006, the Opposite Party Finance Company had issued “No Objection Certificate” to the Complainant. However, when the Complainant approached to the Opposite Party No.3 to take the delivery of the vehicle, the Opposite Party No.3 refused to deliver the vehicle to the Complainant unless the yard charges @ ₹100/- per day were paid. According to the Complainant, the Opposite Party No. 3 had no legal right to take possession of the said vehicle as it was not a party to the contract and the total payment of the instalments towards the loan was already paid to the Opposite Party Finance Company. Being aggrieved, Complainant/Respondent No.1 herein, alleging deficiency in service on part of Opposite Parties filed a Complaint before the District Forum seeking a direction to the Opposite Parties to pay compensation to the tune of ₹15,00,000/- along with interest @8%  etc.
4. Upon notice, the Complaint was contested by the Opposite Party No. 1 & 2 by filing a common Written Statement. It was contended, inter-alia, that as per the Hire Purchase Agreement executed between the parties on 20.08.2001, the Complainant was required to repay the loan amount of ₹2,70,000/- in 35 instalment of ₹9,784/- per month. It was contended that the vehicle of the Complainant had been seized in compliance with the terms and conditions of the Hire Purchase Agreement by adopting a legal procedure. It was also pleaded that the Opposite Parties had issued a Release Letter dated 31.03.2005 to the Complainant wherein it was clearly mentioned that the Complainant had to collect her vehicle from the Yard situated in Varanasi after payment of yard charges. However, the Complainant had not taken her vehicle back, despite repeated reminders dated 12.04.2005 and 23.04.2005. A letter was issued to the Complainant to take possession of the vehicle in compliance of the Order dated 15.05.2009 passed by the State Commission in the Appeal No. 538/2008, however, the Complainant did not take the delivery of the vehicle.
5. Upon evaluation of the material placed on record by both the parties, the District Forum came to the conclusion that there was a deficiency in service on behalf of the Opposite Parties in not delivering the vehicle despite Complainant having been paid the entire loan amount and “No Objection Certificate” being issued by the Opposite Parties.  Consequently, the District Forum allowed the Complaint in above terms. The relevant paragraphs of the English Translation of the Order of the District Forum are as under:-

“8.     Further the Complainant stated that she had deposited total installments on 25.01.2005, also deposited seizure charge of Rs. 6000/- and DPC Charge on 23.09.2005, the opposite party had issued no objection certificate on 22.05.2006, despite of said the opposite party no. 3 had not released the vehicle and asked for the garage charges @100/- per day. Despite of depositing total charges and penalty, non-releasing of the said vehicle is deficiency in service. It is submitted on behalf of opposite parties that the opposite party had issued the releasing letter dated 31.03.2005 to the complainant and also informed that to the complainant to get release her vehicle from the yard after paying requisite charges, but the complainant had not get released her vehicle, the opposite party again issued letters dated 12.04.2005 and 23.04.2005 respectively, wherein clearly stated to the complainant that she should get release her vehicle, the complainant had denied from receiving this kind of letters, the opposite party had annexed 2 letters dated 12.04.2005 & 23.04.2005, but the letter dated 31.03.2005 had not been found, from the aforesaid annexed Letters dated 12.04.2005 & 23.04.2005. it has not been cleared that how these had been send to the complainant, neither any statement nor any evidence has been filed in this regard, hence the statement of the Complainant has proved true that the opposite parties had prepared these fabricated documents. Despite of receiving full payment of the installments and issuing NOC dated 22.05.2006 by the opposite party, non-releasing of the said vehicle in favour of the Complainant is deficiency in service. It is known that in this regard the complainant had filed an IA dated 18.03.2008 in the Appeal No. 533/2008 before the Hon'ble State Commission and the Hon'ble Commission had decided the same without any delay with the direction to the opposite party to release the vehicle in favour of the complainant immediately. Despite of the Order, the Opposite Party had not released the said vehicle, then the Complainant again filed an Application Under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act dated 15.05.2009 before the Hon'ble Commission for the direction to the Opposite Party to comply the aforesaid order. It has been cleared from the report filed by the Commissioner which has been annexed with the list of the documents that the Opposite Party had deliberately not complied with the directions of the Hon'ble Commission and not released the said vehicle to the Complainant. At present, the said vehicle is termed into garbage and not capable to be run, all part of the vehicle have been damaged due to open parking since long time. It is cleared that non-releasing of the vehicle, despite of receiving all outstanding dues, is an unfair trade practice and deficiency in service.

9.        It has been cleared from the Written Argument filed by the Complainant that the vehicle had been damaged due to forcibly snatching by the Opposite Party and by parking in the open space, hence the Complainant is entitled to get a sum of Rs.3,25,000/- along with the interest which was the cost of the insurance at the time when the vehicle was snatched by the Opposite Party, however she prayed in relief sought by her in her complaint may grant a new  vehicle or cost of the new vehicle of Rs.4,10,000/-, which is not justifiable as when the vehicle was snatched from the Complainant, it had been run for a period of more than four years.  The Complainant stated that at the time of snatching, the cost of the insurance was of Rs.3,25,000/- which has not been rebutted by the opposite parties.  Hence, in our point of view, it is appropriate to determine the costs of the vehicle of Rs.3,25,000/- at the time of snatching of the said vehicle and the Complainant is entitled to received this amount for the vehicle along with the interest @ 8% on it from the date of the filing of the present complaint till the actual realization of the payment, except this the Complainant also prayed for a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- for compensation, in our view this demand of the Complainant is an exaggerated demand and baseless.  In view of the circumstances of the matter and harassment suffered by the Complainant, the Complainant is also entitled to get a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation and costs of the litigation of Rs.5000/- from the opposite party no.1 and 2.”

6.       Dis-satisfied with the said Order, Opposite Party No. 1 in the Complaint and the Complainant both filed the Appeals before the State Commission. First Appeal No. 1617 of 2015 was filed by the Finance Company for setting aside the order passed by the District Forum while the First Appeal No. 1328 of 2015 was filed by the Complainant for enhancement of compensation. The State Commission dismissed both the Appeals by its common order observing as under:-

District Consumer Forum has mentioned in the impugned judgment and order that the said Opposite Parties have not released vehicle even making defiance of order of State Commission passed on 18.03.2008.

Learned Counsel for Opposite Party/Appellant has failed to show us release order dated 31-03-2005 mentioned in above paragraph 10 of Written Statement of Opposite Party/Appellant. Learned Counsel for Opposite Party/Appellant has further failed to show that letters dated 12.04.2005 and 23.04.2005 mentioned in above paragraph 10 of Written Statement were delivered to or served on Complainant/ Respondent. There is nothing on record to show that the above letters were delivered to or served on Complainant. Considering evidence on record and circumstances of the case, we are of view that District Consumer Forum has rightly held that above letters mentioned in paragraph 10 of Written Statement are fabricated.

In ground 'd' of grounds of Appeal, Appellant/ Opposite Party has alleged that as per terms of Loan Agreement Complainant had to pay the repo and other charges in consequence of repossession. Hence, she is bound to pay the yard charges.

We have considered the plea raised in grounds of appeal. In terms of loan agreement the Complainant is liable to pay charges arising out of repossession of vehicle to the Appellant/Opposite Party only and not to any other person. Vehicle has been kept in garage of Opposite Party/Respondent No.2 by Opposite Party/ Appellant and not by Complainant/Respondent. As such, Opposite Party/Appellant was liable to pay yard charges to the Opposite Party/Respondent no.2 and might have recovered it from Complainant/Respondent along with loan amount.

The Respondent/Complainant has deposited whole loan amount due on 25.01.2005 with seizure charge of Rs.6,000/-. She has further deposited D.P.C. charges on 23.09.2005. Thereafter, Appellant/Opposite Party has issued no objection certificate to the respondent/complainant. No objection certificate shows that no other charge was due against complainant/respondent in respect of loan in question and in view of conclusion drawn above the conditional release order dated31.03.2005aswell as letters dated 12.04.2005 and 23.04.2005 alleged by Appellant/Opposite Party are fabricated and have not been delivered to or served on Complainant/ Respondent.

In view of above, after having gone through whole facts and evidence on record, we are of the view that appellant/opposite party has committed deficiency in service by not releasing vehicle to the complainant even after having issued no objection certificate to complainant on payment of loan amount along with other charges arising out of repossession of vehicle. The conclusion drawn by District Consumer Forum cannot be said to be against law and evidence.

Report of the Commissioner shows that by efflux of time the vehicle has been ruined and it has lost its value. The District Consumer Forum has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.3,25,000/- on the basis of insured value of vehicle. The amount of compensation fixed by the District Consumer Forum is appropriate and reasonable.

Rate of interest fixed by the District Consumer Forum is also reasonable.

In view of conclusion drawn above, we are of the view that there is no sufficient ground for interference in the impugned judgment and order passed by District Consumer Forum. Appeal No. 1617 of 2015 filed by opposite party Magma Fincorp Limited has no merit and is liable to be dismissed.

District Consumer Forum has awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- to the complainant in addition to insured value of vehicle which is Rs.3,25,000/-. The District Consumer Forum has awarded interest also at the rate of 8% per annum. Relief granted by District Consumer Forum appears adequate and appropriate.”

07.     Hence, the Opposite Party Finance Company is before us by filing the present Revision Petitioner. Since, the Complainant has not challenged the Order passed by the State Commission the Order of the District Forum has attained finality qua her.

08.     I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the Complainant appearing in person for some time and also perused the material available on the record as well as the Written Submissions filed by the parties.

09.     Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently submitted that under the terms and conditions of the Hire Purchase Agreement, the Financier was the actual owner of the vehicle till the loan amount is repaid by the Borrower and as such the Financier was legally entitled to take repossession of the vehicle on the ground of non-payment of instalment by the Borrower.  In support of the said contention, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Magma Fincrop Ltd. Vs. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari  - (Civil Appeal No. 5622 of 2019 decided on 01.10.2020)  as well as of this Commission in the cases of Tata Finance Ltd. Vs. Marjan Hossain and Ors. (Revision Petition No. 367 of 1998) and Manager, St. Mary's Hire Purchase Ltd. Vs. N.A. Jose {1995 CPJ 58 (NC)}.  It is further stated that as per the Arbitration Clause contained in the Hire Purchase Agreement, the matter was required to be decided by the Arbitrator. He further urged that the vehicle in question was purchased for commercial purposes and was being plied for profit and commercial motive only by engaging a driver and therefore, the Respondent/Complainant was not a “Consumer” within the purview of the Act. He further submitted that as per terms of the Hire Purchase Agreement, the Complainant was bound to pay the Repo Charges and other charges to the Vehicle in question in consequence of repossession and as such the Complainant was bound to pay the Yard Charges as well.

10.     As against this, Complainant appearing in person submitted that the vehicle was illegally repossessed by the Petitioners through muscular man on 15.01.2005 without issuing any notice. The Complainant had paid all the dues including additional and other charges to the Petitioner and obtained the “No Objection Certificate” but still the Vehicle was not released to her. The Petitioner intentionally took six months’ time to issue Release Order but the Vehicle was not release due to non-payment of yard charges. In the first round of litigation, the State Commission had passed an interim order for releasing of the vehicle to her with immediate effect, however, the said direction was not complied with by the Petitioners. Consequently, she filed an Execution Application wherein, the Examination Report of the vehicle in question was called upon and it was found that the vehicle was not in a running condition.  The maximum parts of the vehicle were damaged.  She further submitted that after expiry of period of 15 years the value of the vehicle in question has becomes zero, since as per law a running permit for such an old vehicle could not be issued.

11.         Having bestowed my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the Learned Counsel for the Parties, I am of the considered view that there is no merit in any of the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The Complainant had purchased the TATA SPCO vehicle through obtaining loan from the Opposite Party No. 2, the Branch of the Opposite Party No.1 Finance Company. The total costs of the vehicle was ₹4,07,000/- out of which the Complainant paid an amount of ₹1,37,000/- in cash and the balance amount of ₹2,70,000/- was financed by the Opposite Party No.2. It is an admitted fact that the Complainant had paid all the due installments to the Opposite Party No.2 except two/three installments due to ill-health and financial constraints. Consequently, on 15.01.2005, 4 or 5 persons forcefully snatched the vehicle due to non-payment of the installments without any intimation or prior notice to the Complainant and the vehicle was parked in garage of the Opposite Party No.3.  On 25.01.2005, the Complainant paid the entire outstanding amount of the loan to the Opposite Party No.2 apart from seizure charges of ₹6,000/- and additional DPC Charges.  Accordingly, a “No Objection Certificate” was issued to the Complainant but when she approached to the Opposite Party No.3 for release of the vehicle, they refused to deliver the vehicle unless the garage charges are paid by the Complainant which she denied to pay as she was not liable to pay any garage charges to the Opposite Party No.3.  She had already paid all the dues to the Opposite Party No.2 and a No Objection Certificate was also issued to the Complainant. According to the Opposite Party No.2, they had issued a letter dated 31.03.2005 to the Complainant requesting to collect the Vehicle from the Opposite Party No.3 after payment of garage charges but the Petitioner/Opposite Party had failed to produce the said letter on record.  Further, it is the defence of the Petitioner that they have issued two letters dated 12.04.2005 and 23.04.2005 to the Complainant with regard to delivery of the vehicle.  However, there is a concurrent finding of facts returned by the Fora below that both the letters were fabricated by the Opposite Party No.2 as they had failed to prove in what manner these letters were sent or received by the Complainant. Moreover, a direction was issued by the State Commission in the first round of the litigation to the Petitioner to release the vehicle to the Complainant but even the said direction was not complied with by the Petitioner. Consequently, Complainant initiated the execution proceedings for release of the vehicle.  I also do not agree with the submission of the Petitioner that in terms of the Hire Purchase Agreement, the Complainant was liable to pay the repo and other charges in consequence of repossession and as such she was required to pay the garage charges also. There is no doubt that in terms of the Hire Purchase Agreement, the Complainant was under an obligation to pay all the charges of repossession but there was no privity of contract between the Complainant and the Opposite Party No.3 and hence, Complainant was not required to pay any charges to the Opposite Party No.2.  At the most even if the Complainant was required to pay garage charges, it was the duty of the Opposite Party No.2 to charge the same before issuing the “No Objection Certificate” to the Complainant which has not been done.

12.     I also agree with the current finding of the Fora Below that the Opposite Party No.2 had not followed the proper procedure for repossession of the vehicle as no prior intimation/notice was given to the Complainant. The Opposite Party Nos. 2 &3 by the use of musclemen has snatched the vehicle from the Complainant which is totally contrary to the view taken by the Supreme Court in catena of judgment. In the case of ICICI Bank Vs. Prakash Kaur & Ors. – (2007) 2 SCC 711, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:-

“        Before we part with this matter, we wish to make it clear that we do not appreciate the procedure adopted by the Bank in removing the vehicle from the possession of the writ petitioner.  The practice of hiring recovery agents, who are musclemen, is deprecated and needs to be discouraged.  The Bank should resort to procedure recognized by law to take possession of vehicles in cases where the borrower may have committed default in payment of the installments instead of taking resort to strong-arm-tactics.

13.     For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the considered opinion that the Fora below had considered all the material evidence on record and there is no illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Order passed by them warranting our limited revisional jurisdiction under the Act. There is a concurrent finding of facts rendered by the Fora below that there was clear cut deficiency in service on the part of Petitioners in not releasing the vehicle to the Complainant despite issuing the “No Objection Certificate” to the Complainants and directions issued by the State Commission for the release of the Vehicle.

14.     It is well settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Sunil Kumar Maity vs. State Bank of India & Anr.’ - [Civil Appeal No. 432/2022 decided on 21.01.2022] that the Revisional Jurisdiction of this Commission under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 is extremely limited and this Commission cannot set aside the Order passed by the State Commission in Revisional Jurisdiction until and unless there is any illegality, material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the Order passed by the State Commission.  For ready reference, relevant paragraph of the judgement is reproduced as under:-

“ It is needless to say that the revisional jurisdiction of the National Commission under Section 21(b) of the said Act is extremely limited. It should be exercised only in case as contemplated within the parameters specified in the said provision, namely when it appears to the National Commission that the 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 illegally or with material irregularity. In the instant case, the National Commission itself had exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by calling for the report from the respondent-bank and solely relying upon such report, had come to the conclusion that the two fora below had erred in not undertaking the requisite in-depth appraisal of the case that was required. .....”

15.     Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajiv Shukla Vs. Gold Rush Sales and Services Ltd.  & Anr – (Civil Appeal No. 5928 of 2022 decided on 08.09.2022) has held as under:-

“   At this stage, it is required to be noted that on appreciation of evidence on record the District Forum as well as the State Commission concurrently found that the car delivered was used car. Such findings of facts recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission were not required to be interfered by the National Commission in exercise of the revisional jurisdiction. It is required to be noted that while passing the impugned judgment and order the National Commission was exercising the revisional jurisdiction vested under Section 21 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. As per Section 21(b) the National Commission shall have jurisdiction to call for the records and pass appropriate orders in any consumer dispute which is pending before or has been decided by any State Commission where it appears to the National Commission that such State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested, or has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. Thus, the powers of the National Commission are very limited. Only in a case where it is found that the State Commission has exercised its jurisdiction not vested in it by law, or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested illegally or with material irregularity, the National Commission would be justified in exercising the revisional jurisdiction. In exercising of revisional jurisdiction the National Commission has no jurisdiction to interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by the District Forum and the State Commission which are on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, while passing the impugned judgment and order the National Commission has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the revisional jurisdiction conferred under Section 21(b) of the Consumer Protection Act. (Emphasis supplied)

16.   In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the afore-noted Judgements, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the well-reasoned Impugned Order dated 28.11.2016 passed by the State Commission which is based on proper and correct appreciation of the facts and evidence adduced by the Parties. Consequently, the present Revision Petition fails and is hereby dismissed. However, keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case, there shall be no Order as to costs.