This Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant against Respondent/ Opposite Party challenging the impugned Order dated 25.04.2017 passed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, Haryana, in First Appeal bearing No. 681 of 2015. Vide such Order, the State Commission had disposed off the Appeal with modification while setting aside the Order dated 23.04.2014 passed by the District Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum, Rohtak in Complaint No. 490 of 2010. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the Complainant had purchased a Tata CEX-2518 under the HPA of Tata Motors Finance Limited on 16.11.2006 under contract No. 5000021195 and paid monthly instalments of Rs.26,230/- regularly without fail to the Opposite Party No.1. Thereafter, on 19.06.2010, Mr. Rajivan Nambiyar alongwith 5-7 people had impounded the vehicle on the pretext that some instalments were due by the Complainant and further pressurized the Complainant to sign on some blank papers. The Complainant suffered a loss @Rs.4,000/- per day due to illegal and unauthorised detention of the vehicle. Consequently, a Legal Notice dated 22.06.2010 was served upon the Opposite Parties to release the vehicle. However, no heed was paid by the Opposite Parties. Therefore, the Complaint was filed before the Ld. District Forum seeking release of the aforesaid vehicle bearing registration No. HR-61-5506, and to pay an amount of Rs.1,96,000/- for loss and as compensation, along with interest @18% p.a. 3. The Opposite Party – TATA Motors Finance Ltd. appeared before the Ld. District Forum and resisted the Complaint and denied all the allegations thereby denying deficiency in service on its part. It was contended that the Complainant is not a ‘Consumer’ as he was using the vehicle for commercial purpose and was earning huge profit as admitted in the Complaint. The Complainant in spite of earning huge profits, was not paying the monthly instalment of Rs.26,230/- regularly on 21st day of each month from 21.12.2006 to 21.09.2010 and was avoiding payment on the due dates and later avoided to pay instalments in June and July, 2009 and May, 2010 which resulted in impounding of the vehicle. The Complainant and the Opposite Party were bound by the terms of the Loan Agreement wherein the Complainant had to pay the loan instalments in time and on default in payment, the Opposite Party had the right to take possession of the vehicle as it is the only security available for securing the loan. The Complainant had given false representations that he had enough means to repay the loan. Moreover, there had been no use of any force. Therefore, the Opposite Party prayed for dismissal of the Complaint with costs. 4. The Ld. District Forum vide its Order dated 23.04.2014 had observed that the vehicle was repossessed by the Opposite Parties as per the terms and conditions of the Agreement. However, the Opposite Party had charged Rs.25,080/- on 21.06.2010 after repossession of the vehicle on 19.06.2010, which amounted to deficiency in service as it was not justifiable for the financer to accept the instalment after repossession. Therefore, the Opposite Parties were directed to refund Rs.25,080/- along with interest @9% p.a. from 21.06.2010 till actual realization and Rs.10,000/- as compensation and Rs.2,000/- as Litigation expenses. 5. Aggrieved by the above Order, First Appeal bearing No. 681 of 2015 was filed by Appellant/Complainant against the respondents/ Opposite Parties before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula, Haryana. 6. The Ld. State Commission vide the impugned Order dated 25.04.2017 disposed off the Appeal with modification while setting aside the Order of Ld. District Forum and observing that the sum was to be repaid by 21.09.2010 and the Complainant had already paid instalments upto June, 2010 and only three instalments were left. It was further observed that there was high handedness at the hand of the Opposite Parties and they took possession of the vehicle forcibly without following proper procedure and as per the Agreement. Therefore, the Complainant was entitled for relief. It was held that the Opposite Parties are liable to pay the difference between the amount payable by the Complainant and sale proceeds of truck, and as they had taken possession of the truck without proper procedure, they were not entitled to recover any penalty or interest on the remaining instalments. Therefore, the Ld. State Commission held the Complainant to be entitled to Rs.96,000/- qua loss along with other ancillary reliefs. 7. The present Revision Petition has been filed by the Petitioner/ Complainant against the above-mentioned impugned order of the Ld. State Commission praying as follows: a. set aside the impugned order dated 25.04.2017 passed by the Hon'ble State Commission, Haryana at Panchkula in First Appeal No. 681 of 2015 and direct the Respondents to pay an amount of Rs.20,00,000/-(Rupees Twenty Lakhs Only) as cost of the insured vehicle along with an interest of 18% p.a from the date of illegal takeover of vehicle i.e. 19.06.2010 till the present day; b. Direct the Respondents to pay Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) for the loss of self employment due to loss of insured vehicle c. Direct the Respondents to pay an amount of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Thirty thousand) as cost towards litigation expenses d. award the costs of these proceedings in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents; and e. pass such other and further orders as are deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 8. Heard the Ld. Counsel for Petitioner. Perused the material available on record. 9. It may be mentioned the State Commission in its impugned Order had noted – “10……..The Ops are liable to pay difference in between amount payable by complainant and sale proceeds of truck. As they took possession of truck without proper procedure, they are not entitled to recover penalty or interest on the remaining instalments. Learned District Forum failed to take into consideration all these aspects. O.Ps cannot derive and benefit from the cited case laws because in those cases borrower was regular defaulter and proper procedure was followed by financer, which is missing in the present case. 11. As a sequal to above discussion, impugned order dated 23.04.2014 is set aside. The complainant alleged his income as Rs. 4000/- per day and O.Os. also admitted that he was earning this much amount per day, but, he never asked in the prayer clause to pay Rs. Four Thousand per day. Prayer in relief clause is as under:- “It is, therefore, prayed that the opposite parties may be ordered to release the said vehicle bearing registration no. HR-61-5506 and to pay an amount of Rs. 1,96,000/- to the complainant i.e. Rs. 96,000/- as loss @ Rs. 4000/- per days and Rs. 1 lacs for causing mental tension, harassment, deficiency in service and litigation expenses etc., to the complainant alongwith interest thereon from the date of filing complaint @ 18% p.a.” Resultantly, complainant is held entitled for Rs. 96000/- qua loss. O.Ps are directed to deduct instalments due without any penalty or interest from the sale proceeds of this vehicle and remaining amount be paid to him. Complainant is also awarded compensation of Rs. 31,000/- for harassment and mental agony etc. besides Rs. 11,000/- as litigation expenses. With this modification appeal stands disposed of.” 10. Grievance of the Petitioner is that while it had come on record that the vehicle/truck had been sold off by the Respondent/Opposite Party after both the Ld. Fora had determined that taking over possession of the truck by the Opposite Party/Respondent was not proper/in accordance with law (as noted in Para 9 of the impugned judgment), but it was not specified as to how much were the actual sale proceeds of the truck, which had in the first place never been revealed on behalf of the Respondent. 11. Consequently, the Petitioner approached this Commission with a prayer to direct the Respondents to pay an amount of Rs. 20.00 lakhs as cost of the vehicle in question alongwith interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of its illegal take over apart from an additional amount of Rs. 10.00 lakhs for loss of self-employment and Rs. 50,000/- towards litigation costs. 12. Long back on 9.8.2017, the Division Bench which was hearing this matter had directed the Petitioner to submit in categorical the terms with an amount that the Opposite Party owes him after sale of the vehicle, for which purpose time was granted to the Petitioner firstly till 7.9.2017 and thereafter extended till 23.10.2017 on which date he filed his Affidavit stating that “the present value of the insured vehicle in the market is approximately INR 22,94,000”. 13. We, however, were not convinced with this statement of the Petitioner since the price of any given Motor Vehicle is not known to grow up with the passage of time unlike Real Estate or Landed Property. We, therefore, appointed Mr. Nitesh Sharma, Licence Engineer Surveyor and Loss Assessor, to submit an independent assessment regarding the actual market value of the bare vehicle as on the date of its physical take over by the Respondent, vide Order dated 17.5.2023. Mr. Nitesh Sharma subsequently submitted his Report which was not acceptable to the Petitioner who therefore sought time on 25.5.2023 and 11.7.2023 to place the relevant submissions from his side in a documented form, which would seek to impeach/discredit the estimated value report submitted by Mr. Nitesh Sharma. 14. Subsequently, the Petitioner has placed on record the calculation sheet from his side alongwith Standard Commercial Vehicles package Policy issued by ICICI Lombard, in which the schedule of depreciation for fixing the value of any vehicle on the basis of its age has been narrated in a tabulated form. Such percentage of depreciation happens to be 40% for a vehicle the age of which exceeds 03 years but is below 04 years. 15. The vehicle in question in the present case was purchased under Invoice dated 16.11.2006. It was physically taken over by the Respondent on 19.6.2010. It was, therefore, certainly in the period slab of 3-4 years for which the depreciation would be 40%. In the calculation sheet, the Petitioner has quoted the total purchase price/loan amount as being the original price of the vehicle, which has been shown to be Rs. 12,32,964/-. It, however, will not be the actual value of the bare vehicle, since this figure includes the contractual amount payable by the Petitioner/Loanee to the Respondent alongwith the included interest therein, as seen from the contract details which have been placed on record by the Petitioner himself as Annexure P-3. Perusal of the same goes to show that the actual Invoice amount towards the vehicle in question was Rs. 11,15,448.47 paise only, and so the actual market value of the same on the date of its seizure would be after deducting 40% therefrom towards the depreciation by afflux of time. Such value therefore comes to Rs. 6,69,269.09 paise. Further, from the last page of the aforesaid contract details (Annexure P-3) it is seen that the Petitioner had liquidated all his balance outstanding loan liabilities on 24.8.2011 inclusive of the accrued interest for the delay in such payment. 16. He is therefore held entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 6,69,269.09 paise only towards sale proceeds of the vehicle. 17. The Revision Petition is, therefore, allowed after partially modifying the impugned Order to the extent that the actual amount payable to the Petitioner towards cost of the vehicle is quantified at Rs. 6,69,269.09 paise. Rest of the directions passed in the impugned Order shall remain unaltered. 18. The Respondents are now directed to repay any outstanding dues towards the Petitioner in terms of this Order within a month from the date of this Order. 19. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed off as having been rendered infructuous. | 
