1.         The present Revision Petition (RP) has been filed by the Petitioners against Respondents as detailed above, under section 21 (B) of Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 26.05.2015 of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Punjab (hereinafter referred to as the ‘State Commission’), in First Appeal (FA) No. 1765 of 2011 in which order dated 13.10.2011 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Amritsar (hereinafter referred to as District Forum) in Consumer Complaint (CC) No. 819 of 2010 was challenged, inter alia praying for setting aside the order dated 26.05.2015 of the State Commission.

2.         While the Revision Petitioner(s) (hereinafter also referred to as OP-2) was Appellant before the State Commission and Opposite Party 2 before the District Forum and the Respondent(s) 1 and 2 (hereinafter also referred to as Complainant and OP-1 respectively) were Respondent No. 1 & 2 before the State Commission in FA/1765/2011 and Complainant and Opposite Party No. 1 before the District Forum in Complaint No. 819 of 2010.

3.         Notice was issued to the Respondent(s) on 16.09.2015. Parties filed Written Arguments on 10.08.2023 (R-1) and 09.01.2024 (Petitioner) respectively. No written arguments were filed by R-2 and was not present also on the last date of hearing also. 

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

(i) Respondent No. 2 obtained a finance service from the Petitioner Company on 22.03.2005 with Loan of a sum of Rs.5,63,000/- with Loan Agreement vide contract no. B0090671 for purchase of Mahindra Scorpio Vehicle. Loan amount of Rs.6,72,273/- was to be repaid in 60 monthly instalments of Rs. 11,240/- each, comprising principal and finance charges from 22.03.2005 to 22.02.2010. On 31.03.2006, Respondent no. 2 sold his vehicle bearing no. PB 02 AN 7676 to the Respondent No. 1 (complainant) for an amount of Rs.1,60,000/-. Thereafter, Respondent no. 1 was supposed to pay rest of the instalments after the date of sale of the said vehicle i.e. 31.03.2006. Accordingly, he deposited Rs.3000/- as assignment fee vide receipt no. 984378 dated 31.03.2006 which was counter signed by the respondent no. 1.

(ii) The account of the respondent no.2 was irregular especially after the month of August 2008. The Respondent no.1 made the payment towards the instalments lastly on 26.11.2008 which was towards 41^st & 42^nd  instalments. All the payments made by the Respondent have been duly reflected in the statement of account. When the Petitioner company asked the respondent no. 1 to make the payment of the instalments, respondent no. 1 dilly delaying the matter and claiming that he had already deposited a substantial amount in respect of instalments and produced certain receipts which were apparently forged by him. Later on R-1 confessed his guilt and apologized for his said acts and conducts.

(iii) On 26.02.2010, R-1 came in the office of the petitioner with another person and told the petitioner that he had agreed to sell the vehicle in question to that person. It was agreed in between the petitioner and the complainant that Rs.2,08,000/- will be deposited for pre-closing the said loan account. Accordingly. they deposited the sum of Rs.2,08,000/- for pre-closure of loan account with the petitioner. Thereafter, petitioner closed the said loan account and issued the necessary NOC. In view of the above, a Consumer Complaint No. 819 of 2010 before the District Forum, Amritsar was filed by the respondent no. 1.

(iv) Further it is contented by the Petitioner that as there is no privity of contract between the petitioner and the respondent no. 1 that respondent no. 1 is not a ‘Consumer” under the Consumer Protection Act. It was further submitted before the Ld. District Forum that the Respondent no.1 deposited the sum of Rs. 2,08,000/- for pre closure of the loan account on 26.02.2010 and thereafter petitioner issued the necessary NOC to the Respondent. District Forum, Amritsar allowed the complaint vide order dated 13.10.2011 and had directed the petitioner to hand over the possession of vehicle (Scorpio) PB 02 AN 7676 to the complainant in the same condition as it was on the date of taking forcible possession on 18.12.2009 and in case the said vehicle has been sold by opposite party NO.2, an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (approx. depreciated value of the vehicle in question at the time of taking possession by the opposite party No.2) be paid to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order alongwith interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of complaint to the date of payment.

(v) Aggrieved by the order of the Hon'ble District Forum, Amritsar, the petitioner filed F.A. no. 1765 of 2011 before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. Punjab on 01.12.2011.

(vi) The State Commission vide order dated 26.05.2015 has dismissed the Appeal filed by the petitioner. It is stated that the State Commission has dismissed appeal without going into merits of the case before it. It is submitted that the State Commission has not appreciated the submissions of the petitioner and has dismissed the appeal.

5.         Vide Order dated 13.10.2011, in the CC no. 819 of 2010 the District Commission has partly accepted the complaint and Opposite Party No. 2 was directed to hand over the possession of Vehicle (Scorpio) PB 02 AN 7676 to the complainant in the same condition as it was on the date of taking forcible possession on 18.12.2009 and in case the said vehicle has been sold by opposite party no. 2, an amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- (approx.. depreciated value of the vehicle in question at the time of taking possession by the opposite party no. 2) be paid to the complainant within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order alongwith interest @9% p.a. from the date of filing the complaint to the date of payment.

6.         Aggrieved by the said Order dated 13.10.2011 of District Commission, Petitioner(s) appealed in State Commission and the State Commission vide order dated 26.05.2015 in FA No. 1765 of 2011 has dismissed the appeal.

7.         Petitioner(s) have challenged the said Order dated 26.05.2015 of the State Commission mainly/inter alia on following grounds:

1. The State Commission as well as the District Forum failed to give any categorical finding that payment receipts to petitioner were forged by Respondent no. 1 and forum failed to give any cogent reason for not initiating perjury proceeding against Respondent no. 1 and rather the Forum had a very lenient and fleeting view over the issue even after application for initiating proceedings against the complainant for perjury and other offences committed by the complainant was filed by the petitioner herein.

2. The State Commission as well as District Forum ignored the fact that the respondent no.1 did not utter or explain the issue of forged receipts in his evidence or written arguments. Respondent no.1 did not explain how the money was deposited in the loan account. The story put forth by the Respondent no.1 is without explanation and is totally based on conjectures and surmises. District forum has failed either to accept or deny the version of the Respondent no.1 or the petitioner herein.

3. The State Commission as well as District Forum failed to appreciate and consider the fact that Respondent no. I could not prove from any document or evidence that on 18.12.2009 petitioner with the help of Balwinder Singh, SHO, P.S. Mehta. illegally took the possession of the vehicle from the custody of Respondent No. 1 and threatened that SHO shall not handover the possession of the vehicle unless he will pay an amount of Rs 2,00,000/-. Consumer Forum mainly relied upon the document filed by respondent no.2. However, the said report of S.H.O. Balwinder Singh was to be read with the complaint filed by the Harbir Singh which was Exhibited as R-1 wherein it was specifically mentioned that the Vehicle was returned to Gurmeet Singh. If the Forum were to rely upon the evidence led by Harbir Singh, when it should have relied upon all the documents which were got exhibited by him.  District Forum below wrongly appreciated the facts of the instant case by holding that the vehicle was picked by Petitioner but totally ignored why exhibit R-1 was not relied upon which was to be read along with exhibit R-2 and R-3.

4. The State Commission as well as District Forum failed to appreciate and consider the fact that it was a concocted story made by the complainant/respondent. No. 1, firstly, in forgoing the cash receipts just to show that he was regularly making the payment to the petitioner and secondly by making a false story of vehicle being taken into custody by the Petitioner. The complainant/respondent No.1 never produced on record any document whatsoever in support of the aforesaid allegations and the District Forum without any substance in the complaint partly accepted the same and illegally & arbitrarily directed the appellant company to handover the possession of vehicle to the complainant/respondent No. 1 or in the alternative an amount of Rs.3.00 Lacs along with 9% interest from the filing of complaint till the date of payment.

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 the grounds (para 7), the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a NBFC involved in the business of Financing of Vehicles of all kind of Make and Model. It is now pertinent to mention that the petitioner provided financial assistance/Loan of Rs.563000/- to Respondent No. 2 vide Loan cum Hypothecation Agreement No. B0090671 dated 22.03.2005 for purchase of Mahindra Scorpio Car Regd. No. PB 02 AN 7676 (Vehicle). As per the terms of the said agreement, the Respondent No. 2 was to repay the loan amount by way of one instalment of Rs.9113 and 59 monthly instalments of Rs.11240/- each comprising principal and finance charges as set out in Schedule I of the said agreement. That the said instalments were to be paid from 23.05.2005 to 22.02.2010.

It is important to note the judgement of this Hon’ble Commission in Bharti Singh Rathor v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 2018 SCC OnLine NCDRC 766 where this Hon’ble Commission rejected the complaint of the complainant after reaching to the conclusion that the same was based on the bills that were actually forged. The issue is no more res integra, as the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/S Magma Fincorp Ltd. vs Rajesh Kumar Tiwari has held that the onus to prove deficiency is on the complainant. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court affirmed the established principle in its judgement of PSA SICAL Terminals (P) Ltd. v. Board of Trustees of V.O. Chidambranar Port Trust Tuticorin 2021 SCC OnLine SC 508. It is submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Chairman and Managing Director, City Union Bank Ltd. and Anr. v. R. Chandramohan (2023) 7 SCC 775 has reiterated the principle laid down by the Apex Court that in cases of Highly Disputed Questions of Fact, the Consumer Forum is not equipped to adjudicate being a Court of Summary proceedings and therefore such cases lie outside the ambit of Consumer Protection Act.

            8.2       On the other hand Respondent-1 contended that he without any default regularly paid the installments to one Mr. Rajiv Kumar being the employer of the Petitioner Company who would in return issue receipts to the Respondent No.1. However, the said Mr. Rajiv Kumar failed to issue receipt of one of the installments of Rs.80,000/-. The Respondent was assured by Mr. Rajiv Kumar and the Manager of the Petitioner Company that the said amount shall be added in the loan account but to no avail.

That the Petitioner illegally demanded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- from the Respondent No.1 and on 18.12.2009, the Petitioner along with the SHO, Mr. Balwinder Singh illegally took possession of the said vehicle and further demanded a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the Respondent. The Respondent on numerous occasions approached the Petitioner and requested to release the vehicle but to no avail.

9.         During the hearing on 26.03.2024, the petitioner contended that they never repossessed the vehicle in question and the vehicle never came into their possession as alleged. Hence, the question of returning the vehicle by them does not arise. Petitioner also admitted during the hearing that they received the balance outstanding in the loan account from respondent no. 1 and issued the requisite NOC. Respondent no. 1 on the other hand stated that the vehicle was taken possession by the petitioner with the help of police and they (respondent no. 1) relay upon the report of the Police Station, Mehta dated 01.02.2010 in this regard.

10.       We have carefully gone through the said report dated 01.02.2010 of SHO Police Station Mehta, which is reproduced below:

                                        "Sir

With regard to the above numbered application, it is submitted that the said application was received from Jagir Kaur wife of Milkha Singh, resident of village Jalal Usma, against Satnam Singh, Sokha, Paramjit Singh sons of Sewa Singh, Harbir Singh son Satnam Singh, residents of village Jalal Usma, on account of non payment against Car make Scorpio bearing Registration No. PB-02A7676, in which, investigation has been conducted by calling upon both the parties.

During the course of investigation, it has come to notice that Harbir Singh had purchased a Car make Scorpio bearing Registration No. PB-02A-7676 in the year 2005 and the same was financed with Mahindra & Mahindra company, having its office at, Jalandhar. On 31.03.2006, Harbir Singh enter into an agreement to further sell the said Car to Gurmit Singh son of Milkha Singh, caste Jat, resident of village Usma and Gurmit Singh, with the terms that Gurmit Singh will pay a cash amount of Rs.1,60,000/- to Harbir Singh and Gurmit Singh will be further liable for making payment of the instalments to finance company after 31.03.2006. Both the parties arrivd at an agreement. The said agreement was scribed by Narinder Nath, Deed Writer. But Gurmit Singh son of Milkha Singh resident of village Usma did not pay the instalments to the finance company, due to which, the finance company recovered the Car bearing Registration No. PB-02A-7676, in which case, Harbir Singh son of Satnam Singh resident of village Jalal Usma has no connection whatsoever. The case stands enquired into by ASI Avtar Singh, who has also recorded the statements. Smt. Jagir Kaur wife of Milkha Singh, resident of village Jalal Usma, has filed the instant application against Satnam Singh and his family members, in which, there is no veracity. During the course of investigation, statements of Smt. Jagir Kaur, applicant, Harbir Singh, Satnam Singh were also recorded. Copy of statement regarding instalments of Mahindra & Mahindra company, authority letter, copy of intimation letter, agreement regarding selling out the said Scorpio Car are also enclosed herewith for your kind perusal.

It may kindly directed to consign the application to records.

Report is submitted.”

11.       Perusal of the above stated report does not establish the version of the respondent no. 1 that the said vehicle was taken possession by petitioner with the help of police. The said report does not record any such fact. It only records its report based on investigation and statements of certain person, stating that “But Gurmit Singh son of Milkha Singh, resident of village Usma, did not pay the instalments to the finance company, due to which, the finance company recovered the Car bearing registration no. PB 02A-7676”. It does not state that vehicle was taken possession by petitioner with the help of police, as is contended by the respondent no. 1. There is no definite evidence on record of vehicle having been repossessed by petitioner herein. During the hearing on 26.03.2024, respondent no. 1 admitted that other than the said police report, there is no evidence with them to show that the petitioner herein took possession of the vehicle with the help of the police. Hence, we are of the considered view that findings of District Forum and its endorsement by State Commission that vehicle was seized by OP-2 through the instrumentality of the police is not correct.

12.       Accordingly, we allow the RP and set aside the orders of District Forum, and State Commission with respect to return of the vehicle or payment of Rs.3 lakhs in case the said vehicle has been sold by the petitioner.

13.       Pending IAs in the case, if any, also stand disposed off.