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 19.12.2014 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Maharashtra (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 71/2011 in which order dated 29.11.2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Osmanabad (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 243/10 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 19.12.2014 passed by the State Commission in FA/71/2011.

2.         While the Revision Petitioner (hereinafter also referred to as Opposite Party (OP)) was Appellant before the State Commission and Opposite Party before the District Forum and the Respondent (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant) was Respondent No.1 before the State Commission and Complainant before the District Forum.

3.         Notice was issued to the Respondent on 27.04.2015.  Parties filed Written Arguments on 13.02.2024 (Petitioner) and 09.02.2024 (Respondent) respectively. 

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

(i)        The Complainant purchased Mahindra Arjun 605 Tractor for a sum of Rs.5,28,532/-. The complainant paid Rs.1,80,000/- (the amount received from sale of old tractor ).  The Complainant availed finance of Rs.3,48,532/- from OP/Mahindra & Mahindra Finance Company. Loan Agreement was executed between the parties on 29.05.2007. As per the terms of the Loan Agreement, Respondent-1 was to repay the loan amount by way of 10 six monthly instalments of Rs.74,210/- each, during the period from 01.12.2007 to 01.06.2012.  As per complainant, he deposited three installments of Rs.74,210/- and amount of one installment of Rs.45,000/- in total Rs.2,67,630/-.  On 27.09.2009, 6-7 people of OP-1 came and asked the complainant keys of tractor and told that the officer of finance has asked them to bring the tractor.  The said person started the tractor by cutting ignition wires of tractor and took away the tractor along with router and remaining people went in jeep.  The Complainant approached the OP many times and showed his willingness to deposit the remaining amount.  The OP gave evasive reply.  The OP without giving any notice and oral or written intimation took away the tractor. On receiving message from OP to bring Rs.50,000/- and to take away the tractor on 27.01.2010.  The OP kept complainant in one room and had taken Rs.50,000/- from him.  On 28.01.2010 father of Complainant had filed a formal complaint against OP with PI, Umarga Police Station. But as the police did not investigate the matter, application has been filed with Hon’ble Chief Minister, Home Minister, Superintendent of Police, Osmanabad, Tahsildar, Osmanabad and offence has been registered against OP.  Only Rs.29,190/- of OP is outstanding against the complainant and OP in spite of not giving any notice or written intimation taken away the tractor alongwith router belonging to the complainant. The marking price of router is Rs.70,000/-. Thereafter, complainant requested the OP to release the tractor. The OP refused the request of complainant. Hence, the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum.

5.         Vide Order dated 29.11.2010, in the CC No. 243/2010,  the District Forum partly allowed the complaint and passed the following order:-

“1.The application of the Complainant is partly allowed.

2. Opposite Party no.1 should immediately return the tractor which was seized bearing Registration No.M.H.-25/H.1668 to the Complainant.

3. The opposite Party should give remaining account of outstanding balance against Complainant in which interest, interest on interest, other fine should not be charged and by allowing Complainant to pay the amount as on date in 2-3 installments, remaining amount be recovered as per agreement.

The Complainant should pay the outstanding amount and also should pay the amount of installment in six months as per schedule.

 In spite of the order, if the Complainant does not deposit the outstanding amount or delays future installments, as per the terms and conditions of the agreement, opposite Party no.1 shall have entire rights to recover the amount from Complainant as per law.

4.   As both the parties have been equally put to loss and is attributable to both, no order as to costs have been passed.

5. Opposite Party no.1 has taken Rs.50,000/- by cheating and as no proof as regards existence of router is produced, it is not considered.

6. Cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) be given to Complainant.

Both the parties are bound to follow the order within 30 days from receipt of copy of order. In case, if any of the party does not follow the order and if Darkhast is submitted, as per the circumstances and evidence available in the said Darkhast, the Forum will pass further order and will be binding on both the parties.

7. This Forum cannot take note of complaint at Umarga.

xxxx”

6.         Aggrieved by the said Order dated 29.11.2010 of District Forum, Petitioner/OP-1 appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 19.12.2014 in FA No. 71/2011 has dismissed the appeal uphold the order passed by the District Forum.

7.         Petitioner has challenged the said Order dated 19.12.2014 of the State Commission mainly on following grounds:

(i)        The impugned order is bad in law and on facts, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of the consumer protection Act, and hence, is liable to be set aside.

(ii)       The State Commission failed to appreciate District Forum has ignored the submission of the Petitioner regarding surrender of the Vehicle by the Respondent No. 1 and finally ignoring the Surrender Certificate itself in allowing the complaint of the Respondent No. 1. The order of State Commission is therefore contrary to evidence of record.

(iii)     The  State Commission failed to appreciate District Forum has ignored the submission of the Petitioner regarding Issuance of Pre-Sale Notice of the Vehicle and finally ignoring the Notice dated 14.08.2009 in allowing the complaint of the Complainant/Respondent No. 1. The State Commission failed to appreciate that the petitioner has clearly submitted to the District Forum and well as State Commission that the Vehicle has been sold with prior notice to the Respondent No. 1 and therefore any order for return of vehicle is absolutely incorrect and illegal.

(iv)      The State Commission failed to appreciate that the Respondent No. 1 has been admitted to be defaulter of Loan provided by the Petitioner. The District Forum has virtually re-written the terms and conditions of the contract in directing the Petitioner not to charge penal interest on delayed payment and to take the future instalment from the Respondent.

8.         Heard counsels 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 grounds of Revision Petition (para 7), it is contended by the Petitioner that petitioner provided financial assistance/Loan of  Rs.4,10,000/- to Respondent vide Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement dated 29.05.2007 for purchase of Mahindra 605 DI Tractor vehicle.   As per the terms of the said Agreement, the Respondent was to repay the loan amount by way of 10 six monthly instalments of Rs 74, 210/- each comprising principal and finance charges as set out in Schedule I of the said agreement. The said instalments were to be paid from 29.05.2007 to 01.06.2012. The Complainant was a defaulter. It is contended that the Complainant/Respondent was used to pay in parts and even then, there was a huge delay on part of the Respondent in paying the instalments thus incurring AFC charges also as per the said agreement to the tune of Rs.23,859/- apart from the penal charges. Despite the repeated efforts of the Petitioner for reminding the Respondent to pay the instalment, the Respondent did not pay the instalment. The Respondent on not being able to pay the instalments, himself, surrendered the vehicle to the Petitioner on 11.08.2009 and at that time an amount of Rs.28,840/- plus    Rs.23,859/- totalling to Rs. 52,699/- was due and payable by the Respondent with respect to current and previous charges. It is further contended that an amount of Rs.4,45,260/- was due on Respondent as future receivables for the Loan Amount. The Respondent surrendering the vehicle undertook to pay the due amount within 7 days from the date of surrender of the vehicle on 11.08.2009, failing which, the Petitioner was at liberty to dispose off the vehicle. The Petitioner served another notice on the Respondent reiterating the same on 14.08.2009 and calling upon the Respondent to clear the entire amount due under the said agreement within 7 days from the date of the receipt of the notice, towards full and final discharge in respect of the loan agreement, failing which, the Petitioner shall sell the said vehicle and appropriate the sale proceeds towards the Loan Amount. The Respondent did not pay his dues even after that, the Petitioner after waiting for 72 days, sold the vehicle on 20.10.2009 for the highest bidder for Rs.300000/-. The Respondent filed the Consumer Complaint No. 243 of 2010 before the District Forum, Osmanabad. The Respondent claimed that the Petitioner has taken illegal possession of the vehicle and had sold the vehicle without intimating and without giving any notice to the Respondent. The Petitioner filed their written statement refuting the claims of the Complainant and also placed on record important documents for proper adjudication of the matter. The District Forum passed an order dated 29.11.2020 directing the Petitioner to return the vehicle that was seized by the Petitioner. It further directed the Petitioner to give remaining account of outstanding balance against Complainant in which interest, interest on interest, other fine should not be charged and the Complainant be given liberty to pay the amount due on date in 2-3 instalments, whereas the remaining amount be recovered as per agreement. It was pleaded before the State Commission that vehicle was voluntarily surrendered by the Respondent. The Petitioner specifically pointed out that the written statement of the petitioner was not even considered on the sole ground that the same were not signed by the Petitioner without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner to rectify his mistake. It is  a settled principle of law that procedural lapses take a backseat when an individual has a good case on merits and the substantive rights of the individual are involved. It was also pointed out that the Petitioner on 15.11.2010 filed the documents on record, however, the District Forum failed to consider the same. The  State Commission on 19.12.2014 passed an order dismissing the appeal of the Petitioner on the ground that no notice before the seizure was ever given to the Complainant. It further held that as there was nothing on the record to show that proper procedure was followed by the Petitioner while repossessing the vehicle and that the District Forum rightly allowed the Complaint by appreciating the facts and evidence. Both the District Forum and State Commission erred in holding that the repossession of the vehicle by the Petitioner was illegal. Both the Fora have overlooked the surrender letter dated 11.08.2009 by the Respondent himself. It is contended that a pre-sale notice dated 14.08.2009 by the Petitioner to Respondent was also not considered by both the Commissions. Non- appreciation of such crucial evidence by the State Commission shows error apparent on the face of the record, making the impugned order bad in the eyes of law. It is further contended that the Complainant has no where in its pleadings disputed the said surrender letter and it is an established principle of law that arguments cannot travel beyond pleadings and the findings of the court have to be limited to the pleadings by the parties. In support of his contentions, the Petitioner has relied  upon following judgments (i) M/S Magma Fincorp Ltd. vs Rajesh Kumar Tiwari (2020) 10 SCC 399 (ii) Christi Sahitya Prasarak v. Cholamandalam Investment & Finance Co. Ltd. 2022 SCC OnLine NCDRC 430.  The Hon'ble Apex Court affirmed the established principle in its judgment of PSA SICAL Terminals (P) Ltd. v. Board of Trustees of V.O. Chidambranar Port Trust Tuticorin 2021 SCC OnLine SC 508.

8.2.      On the other hand it is contended by the Respondent/Complainant that the District Forum allowed the complaint after due consideration and directed the Petitioner to return the tractor.  The District Forum found that the petitioner had not followed proper procedures before seizing the tractor.  The District Forum specifically highlighted the petitioner’s non-compliance with proper notice procedures, indicating a clear violation of consumer rights.  The District Forum acknowledged the complainant’s repeated attempts to settle the outstanding amount, demonstrating a genuine willingness to comply with the financial obligations. The State Commission, in dismissing the appeal, did not dispute the District Forum’s findings regarding procedural irregularities and the complainant’s willingness to pay.  The State Commission upheld the finding that the petitioner failed to provide due notice before repossessing the tractor.  The absence of proper procedure in the repossession raises questions about the legality of the seizure. It is further contended that the complainant, despite being in financial distress, had shown a willingness to repay the outstanding amount.  The petitioner’s refusal to consider this and hasty repossession point to a deficiency in service. The manner in which the tractor was seized, raises concerns about unethical practices employed by the petitioner. It is further contended that the complainant filed a formal complaint with the Umarga Police Station on 28.01.2010, highlighting the coercion and unlawful seizure of the tractor.  Despite the complaint, the police did not conduct a thorough  investigation, necessitating the complainant to approach the higher authorities Thereafter, FIR was filed on 04.03.2010 in Omegra Police Station, Osmanabad District, against the employees of the Petitioner’s company.  It is also contended that the police filed chargesheet  against the employees of the Petitioner and the trial is pending before the Judicial Magistrate, Omegra.  The employees of the Petitioner company had filed a quashing petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. before the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench and the same has been dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court.  It is also contended that assertion of surrendering the vehicle is highly suspect.  During the financial process, the petitioner obtained signatures on numerous blank papers, citing it as standard procedure and requirement.  This crucial information was conspicuously absent during the District Forum proceedings.  The introduction of the surrender letter before the State commission occurred subsequent to an unfavourable ruing at the District Forum.  This timing raises serious doubts about the authenticity of the surrender claim, suggesting a potential effort to manipulate the narrative. If the surrender claim was genuine, it stands to reason that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay would not have dismissed the quashing petition and criminal proceedings would not be pending against the employees of the petitioner. In support of his contentions, the Respondent/complainant has relied upon the judgement passed by this Commission in  Kotak Mahindra Bank Ltd. Vs. Dheeraj Soingh Beldar, Revision Petition No. 1101 of 2020 decided on 5 January 2021.

9.         We have carefully gone through the orders of the State Commission, District Forum, other relevant record, Case Laws relied upon and rival contentions of the parties.  In this case, there are concurrent findings of both the Fora below against the Petitioner herein.  State Commission after considering the facts of the case and evidence before it, has concluded that no notice before seizure was given to the Complainant.  The OP was under obligation to take the possession of tractor with lawful means and by following the procedure prescribed.  There is nothing on record to show that the proper procedure was followed by the OP while repossessing the tractor.  A perusal of order of District Forum reveals that it has appropriately addressed the rival contentions of the parties.  In this regard extract of relevant para of order of District Forum is reproduced below:

“4.7  The opposite Party has not issued any notice to the Complainant before seizure of tractor.  The legal procedure stipulated for sale of tractor has not been followed. The opposite Party have not answered the questions as regards, how much amount is received from sale of tractor? How much loan was due to Complainant? Out of the entire amount, details as regards how much amount is recovered and how? Whether entire amount has been recovered? Whether N.O.C. has been given? Or still the amount is to be recovered so also has not given clear details. Hence, the procedure adopted is totally wrong. The documents as to whom the tractor was sold so also the proof thereof have not been filed. Hence, the Forum taking into consideration the opposite Party has not sold the tractor till date, has come to conclusion that why the opposite Party should not be held responsible for deficiency in service and carelessness? All the aforesaid issues are against opposite Party. That even if the Complainant has not paid the six monthly installment, it was and is proved that the opposite Party for recovery of said amount has not taken legal steps and has used illegal means, thereby Complainant was put to great irreparable, financial and mental loss. Hence order as under.”

10.       A bare perusal of so called letter dated 11.08.2009 from the Complainant to OP voluntarily surrendering the vehicle in question supports the contentions of the Complainant/Respondent that perhaps OP at the time of sanctioning loan has taken signatures of Complainant  on this blank document, which contains a standard typed language prepared by the OP.  There appears to be no possibility of Complainant having given such a letter, duly filled on the date of this letter.  Hence, much reliance cannot be placed on this letter, vide which the OP claims Complainant voluntarily surrendered  the vehicle.  Notice dated 14.08.2009 contains no reference to letter dated 11.08.2009.  No proof of delivery of this notice to the Complainant has been placed. With respect to this notice dated 14.08.2009,  the District Forum has observed in its order:

“4.4. …… That after minutely perusing the said notice, it reveals that (a) it is not clearly mentioned as to how much amount is due & how much amount is to be paid by Complainant?, (b) if the amount is not paid within 7 days, there is no clear mention as to how the tractor will be sold and as the Complainant was not given any notice about the sale of tractor, it is nothing but a clear case of fraud…….”

11.       As was held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rubi Chandra Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. [(2011) 11 SCC 269], the scope in a Revision Petition is limited. Such powers can be exercised only if there is some prima facie jurisdictional error appearing in the impugned order. In Sunil Kumar Maity Vs. State Bank of India & Ors. [AIR (2022) SC 577]  held 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.”   

12.     The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajiv Shukla vs Gold Rush Sales And Services Ltd. Civil Appeal No. 5928 of 2022, decided on 8 September, 2022, held that:-

“13. 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.

14. 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.”

13.     For the reasons stated hereinabove, and after giving a thoughtful consideration to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, various pleas raised by the learned Counsel for the parties,  we are of the considered view that the State Commission has given a well-reasoned order and we find no reason to interfere with its findings.  There is no illegality or material irregularity or jurisdictional error in the order of the State Commission, hence the same is upheld.  Accordingly, the Revision Petition is dismissed. 

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